At Thu, 1 Jan 2015 16:12:45 +0100, Rickard Strandqvist wrote:
Removes some functions that are not used anywhere: portman_read_data() portman_read_command()
This was partially found by using a static code analysis program called cppcheck.
Signed-off-by: Rickard Strandqvist rickard_strandqvist@spectrumdigital.se
sound/drivers/portman2x4.c | 10 ---------- 1 file changed, 10 deletions(-)
diff --git a/sound/drivers/portman2x4.c b/sound/drivers/portman2x4.c index 78ccfa4..b5b6b4e 100644 --- a/sound/drivers/portman2x4.c +++ b/sound/drivers/portman2x4.c @@ -198,21 +198,11 @@ static inline void portman_write_command(struct portman *pm, u8 value) parport_write_control(pm->pardev->port, value); }
-static inline u8 portman_read_command(struct portman *pm) -{
- return parport_read_control(pm->pardev->port);
-}
static inline u8 portman_read_status(struct portman *pm) { return parport_read_status(pm->pardev->port); }
-static inline u8 portman_read_data(struct portman *pm) -{
- return parport_read_data(pm->pardev->port);
-}
static inline void portman_write_data(struct portman *pm, u8 value) { parport_write_data(pm->pardev->port, value);
Rickard, your works are highly appreciated, but please think twice before submitting patches: is it worth for the whole?
For example, in this case: the removals are static inline functions. So there is no gain by removing this regarding the object size. OTOH, they are obviously wrapper accessors, thus dropping blindly would result in inconsistency. That is, a reader may wonder later why some are write only and some not.
thanks,
Takashi