Hello Thomas Hellstrom,
The patch 25db875401c8: "drm/vmwgfx: Cursor update fixes" from Jan
16, 2018, leads to the following static checker warning:
drivers/gpu/drm/vmwgfx/vmwgfx_kms.c:513 vmw_du_cursor_plane_atomic_check()
info: return a literal instead of 'ret'
drivers/gpu/drm/vmwgfx/vmwgfx_kms.c
493 int vmw_du_cursor_plane_atomic_check(struct drm_plane *plane,
494 struct drm_plane_state *new_state)
495 {
496 int ret = 0;
497 struct vmw_surface *surface = NULL;
498 struct drm_framebuffer *fb = new_state->fb;
499
500 struct drm_rect src = drm_plane_state_src(new_state);
501 struct drm_rect dest = drm_plane_state_dest(new_state);
502
503 /* Turning off */
504 if (!fb)
505 return ret;
^^^^^^^^^^
This would be more clear if it were "return 0;"
506
507 ret = drm_plane_helper_check_update(plane, new_state->crtc, fb,
508 &src, &dest,
509 DRM_MODE_ROTATE_0,
510 DRM_PLANE_HELPER_NO_SCALING,
511 DRM_PLANE_HELPER_NO_SCALING,
512 true, true, &new_state->visible);
513 if (!ret)
514 return ret;
Same here. With the current code, it almost looks like that the if
statement is reversed. As a newbie to this subsystem but with a bit of
kernel experience, it would take me a while to figure out if the if
statement is deliberate or a bug.
515
516 /* A lot of the code assumes this */
517 if (new_state->crtc_w != 64 || new_state->crtc_h != 64) {
518 DRM_ERROR("Invalid cursor dimensions (%d, %d)\n",
519 new_state->crtc_w, new_state->crtc_h);
520 ret = -EINVAL;
521 }
522
523 if (!vmw_framebuffer_to_vfb(fb)->dmabuf)
524 surface = vmw_framebuffer_to_vfbs(fb)->surface;
525
526 if (surface && !surface->snooper.image) {
527 DRM_ERROR("surface not suitable for cursor\n");
528 ret = -EINVAL;
529 }
530
531 return ret;
532 }
regards,
dan carpenter
_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
