clang with W=1 reports
drivers/staging/rtl8723bs/hal/hal_btcoex.c:1182:23: error: variable
  'pHalData' set but not used [-Werror,-Wunused-but-set-variable]
        struct hal_com_data *pHalData;
                             ^
This variable is not used so remove it.

Signed-off-by: Tom Rix <trix@redhat.com>
---
 drivers/staging/rtl8723bs/hal/hal_btcoex.c | 4 ----
 1 file changed, 4 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/staging/rtl8723bs/hal/hal_btcoex.c b/drivers/staging/rtl8723bs/hal/hal_btcoex.c
index e36f8c369a04..0cb2adcc1f78 100644
--- a/drivers/staging/rtl8723bs/hal/hal_btcoex.c
+++ b/drivers/staging/rtl8723bs/hal/hal_btcoex.c
@@ -1179,10 +1179,6 @@ bool hal_btcoex_IsBtDisabled(struct adapter *padapter)
 
 void hal_btcoex_SetChipType(struct adapter *padapter, u8 chipType)
 {
-	struct hal_com_data *pHalData;
-
-
-	pHalData = GET_HAL_DATA(padapter);
 }
 
 void hal_btcoex_SetPgAntNum(struct adapter *padapter, u8 antNum)
-- 
2.27.0

On Sun, Mar 26, 2023 at 08:23:21AM -0400, Tom Rix wrote:
> clang with W=1 reports
> drivers/staging/rtl8723bs/hal/hal_btcoex.c:1182:23: error: variable
>   'pHalData' set but not used [-Werror,-Wunused-but-set-variable]
>         struct hal_com_data *pHalData;
>                              ^
> This variable is not used so remove it.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Tom Rix <trix@redhat.com>
> ---
>  drivers/staging/rtl8723bs/hal/hal_btcoex.c | 4 ----
>  1 file changed, 4 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/staging/rtl8723bs/hal/hal_btcoex.c b/drivers/staging/rtl8723bs/hal/hal_btcoex.c
> index e36f8c369a04..0cb2adcc1f78 100644
> --- a/drivers/staging/rtl8723bs/hal/hal_btcoex.c
> +++ b/drivers/staging/rtl8723bs/hal/hal_btcoex.c
> @@ -1179,10 +1179,6 @@ bool hal_btcoex_IsBtDisabled(struct adapter *padapter)
>  
>  void hal_btcoex_SetChipType(struct adapter *padapter, u8 chipType)
>  {
> -	struct hal_com_data *pHalData;
> -
> -
> -	pHalData = GET_HAL_DATA(padapter);
>  }

If this function doesn't do anything, does it not make more sense to
just remove this function entirely?

Best regards,
Nam

On Sun, Mar 26, 2023 at 02:46:52PM +0200, Nam Cao wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 26, 2023 at 08:23:21AM -0400, Tom Rix wrote:
> > clang with W=1 reports
> > drivers/staging/rtl8723bs/hal/hal_btcoex.c:1182:23: error: variable
> >   'pHalData' set but not used [-Werror,-Wunused-but-set-variable]
> >         struct hal_com_data *pHalData;
> >                              ^
> > This variable is not used so remove it.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Tom Rix <trix@redhat.com>
> > ---
> >  drivers/staging/rtl8723bs/hal/hal_btcoex.c | 4 ----
> >  1 file changed, 4 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/staging/rtl8723bs/hal/hal_btcoex.c b/drivers/staging/rtl8723bs/hal/hal_btcoex.c
> > index e36f8c369a04..0cb2adcc1f78 100644
> > --- a/drivers/staging/rtl8723bs/hal/hal_btcoex.c
> > +++ b/drivers/staging/rtl8723bs/hal/hal_btcoex.c
> > @@ -1179,10 +1179,6 @@ bool hal_btcoex_IsBtDisabled(struct adapter *padapter)
> >  
> >  void hal_btcoex_SetChipType(struct adapter *padapter, u8 chipType)
> >  {
> > -	struct hal_com_data *pHalData;
> > -
> > -
> > -	pHalData = GET_HAL_DATA(padapter);
> >  }
> 
> If this function doesn't do anything, does it not make more sense to
> just remove this function entirely?

This function is already removed in linux-next, so it doesn't matter :)

thanks,

greg k-h

On 3/26/23 5:55 AM, Greg KH wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 26, 2023 at 02:46:52PM +0200, Nam Cao wrote:
>> On Sun, Mar 26, 2023 at 08:23:21AM -0400, Tom Rix wrote:
>>> clang with W=1 reports
>>> drivers/staging/rtl8723bs/hal/hal_btcoex.c:1182:23: error: variable
>>>    'pHalData' set but not used [-Werror,-Wunused-but-set-variable]
>>>          struct hal_com_data *pHalData;
>>>                               ^
>>> This variable is not used so remove it.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Tom Rix <trix@redhat.com>
>>> ---
>>>   drivers/staging/rtl8723bs/hal/hal_btcoex.c | 4 ----
>>>   1 file changed, 4 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/staging/rtl8723bs/hal/hal_btcoex.c b/drivers/staging/rtl8723bs/hal/hal_btcoex.c
>>> index e36f8c369a04..0cb2adcc1f78 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/staging/rtl8723bs/hal/hal_btcoex.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/staging/rtl8723bs/hal/hal_btcoex.c
>>> @@ -1179,10 +1179,6 @@ bool hal_btcoex_IsBtDisabled(struct adapter *padapter)
>>>   
>>>   void hal_btcoex_SetChipType(struct adapter *padapter, u8 chipType)
>>>   {
>>> -	struct hal_com_data *pHalData;
>>> -
>>> -
>>> -	pHalData = GET_HAL_DATA(padapter);
>>>   }
>> If this function doesn't do anything, does it not make more sense to
>> just remove this function entirely?
> This function is already removed in linux-next, so it doesn't matter :)

My patch is against linux-next from tag next-20230324

Tom

>
> thanks,
>
> greg k-h
>

On Sun, Mar 26, 2023 at 06:13:16AM -0700, Tom Rix wrote:
> 
> On 3/26/23 5:55 AM, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Sun, Mar 26, 2023 at 02:46:52PM +0200, Nam Cao wrote:
> > > On Sun, Mar 26, 2023 at 08:23:21AM -0400, Tom Rix wrote:
> > > > clang with W=1 reports
> > > > drivers/staging/rtl8723bs/hal/hal_btcoex.c:1182:23: error: variable
> > > >    'pHalData' set but not used [-Werror,-Wunused-but-set-variable]
> > > >          struct hal_com_data *pHalData;
> > > >                               ^
> > > > This variable is not used so remove it.
> > > > 
> > > > Signed-off-by: Tom Rix <trix@redhat.com>
> > > > ---
> > > >   drivers/staging/rtl8723bs/hal/hal_btcoex.c | 4 ----
> > > >   1 file changed, 4 deletions(-)
> > > > 
> > > > diff --git a/drivers/staging/rtl8723bs/hal/hal_btcoex.c b/drivers/staging/rtl8723bs/hal/hal_btcoex.c
> > > > index e36f8c369a04..0cb2adcc1f78 100644
> > > > --- a/drivers/staging/rtl8723bs/hal/hal_btcoex.c
> > > > +++ b/drivers/staging/rtl8723bs/hal/hal_btcoex.c
> > > > @@ -1179,10 +1179,6 @@ bool hal_btcoex_IsBtDisabled(struct adapter *padapter)
> > > >   void hal_btcoex_SetChipType(struct adapter *padapter, u8 chipType)
> > > >   {
> > > > -	struct hal_com_data *pHalData;
> > > > -
> > > > -
> > > > -	pHalData = GET_HAL_DATA(padapter);
> > > >   }
> > > If this function doesn't do anything, does it not make more sense to
> > > just remove this function entirely?
> > This function is already removed in linux-next, so it doesn't matter :)
> 
> My patch is against linux-next from tag next-20230324

Ah, ok, well it will be gone in the next one, as this is already gone in
my tree.

thanks,

greg k-h