@@ -67,7 +67,8 @@ static inline int m920x_write(struct usb
static inline int m920x_write_seq(struct usb_device *udev, u8 request,
struct m920x_inits *seq)
{
- int ret;
+ int ret = 0;
+
while (seq->address) {
ret = m920x_write(udev, request, seq->data, seq->address);
if (ret != 0)
@@ -81,7 +82,7 @@ static inline int m920x_write_seq(struct
static int m920x_init(struct dvb_usb_device *d, struct m920x_inits *rc_seq)
{
- int ret = 0, i, epi, flags = 0;
+ int ret, i, epi, flags = 0;
int adap_enabled[M9206_MAX_ADAPTERS] = { 0 };
/* Remote controller init. */
@@ -124,7 +125,7 @@ static int m920x_init(struct dvb_usb_dev
}
}
- return ret;
+ return 0;
}
static int m920x_init_ep(struct usb_interface *intf)
drivers/media/usb/dvb-usb/m920x.c:91:6: warning: "ret" may be used uninitialized in this function [-Wuninitialized] drivers/media/usb/dvb-usb/m920x.c:70:6: note: "ret" was declared here This is real, if a remote control has an empty initialization sequence we would get success or failure randomly. OTOH the initialization of ret in m920x_init is needless, the function returns with an error as soon as an error happens, so the last return can only be a success and we can hard-code 0 there. Signed-off-by: Jean Delvare <khali@linux-fr.org> Cc: Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@redhat.com> Cc: Antonio Ospite <ospite@studenti.unina.it> --- Untested, I don't have the hardware. drivers/media/usb/dvb-usb/m920x.c | 7 ++++--- 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)