[PATCH] cpufreq: highbank: do not initialize array with a loop

[Emilio López]

Hello,

El 25/02/13 00:41, Viresh Kumar escribió:
> On Sun, Feb 24, 2013 at 10:31 PM, Emilio López <emilio at elopez.com.ar> wrote:
>> As uninitialized array members will be initialized to zero, we can
>> avoid using a for loop by setting a value to it.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Emilio López <emilio at elopez.com.ar>
>> ---
>> Note that I don't own any device using this driver, it has only been compile
>> tested, but it shouldn't cause any issues.
>>
>>  drivers/cpufreq/highbank-cpufreq.c | 6 +-----
>>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 5 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/highbank-cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/highbank-cpufreq.c
>> index 66e3a71..30d4ae1 100644
>> --- a/drivers/cpufreq/highbank-cpufreq.c
>> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/highbank-cpufreq.c
>> @@ -28,13 +28,9 @@
>>
>>  static int hb_voltage_change(unsigned int freq)
>>  {
>> -       int i;
>> -       u32 msg[HB_CPUFREQ_IPC_LEN];
>> +       u32 msg[HB_CPUFREQ_IPC_LEN] = {HB_CPUFREQ_CHANGE_NOTE};
>>
>> -       msg[0] = HB_CPUFREQ_CHANGE_NOTE;
>>         msg[1] = freq / 1000000;
> 
> I think this can also be part of the definition of array, isn't it?
> 
> So it would be something like:
> 
> u32 msg[HB_CPUFREQ_IPC_LEN] = {HB_CPUFREQ_CHANGE_NOTE, freq / 1000000};
> 

I incorrectly assumed that sparse would complain, but after testing I
see it doesn't. Thanks for pointing it out, I'll send a v2 in a minute.

Emilio