From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx>
An old patch added a 'return' statement after each BUG() in this driver,
which was necessary at the time, but has become redundant after the BUG()
definition was updated to handle this properly.
gcc-11 now warns about one such instance, where the 'return' statement
was incorrectly indented:
drivers/gpu/drm/omapdrm/dss/dispc.c: In function ‘pixinc’:
drivers/gpu/drm/omapdrm/dss/dispc.c:2093:9: error: this ‘else’ clause does not guard... [-Werror=misleading-indentation]
2093 | else
| ^~~~
drivers/gpu/drm/omapdrm/dss/dispc.c:2095:17: note: ...this statement, but the latter is misleadingly indented as if it were guarded by the ‘else’
2095 | return 0;
| ^~~~~~
Address this by removing the return again and changing the BUG()
to be unconditional to make this more intuitive.
Fixes: c6eee968d40d ("OMAPDSS: remove compiler warnings when CONFIG_BUG=n")
Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx>
---
drivers/gpu/drm/omapdrm/dss/dispc.c | 5 ++---
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/omapdrm/dss/dispc.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/omapdrm/dss/dispc.c
index f4cbef8ccace..5619420cc2cc 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/omapdrm/dss/dispc.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/omapdrm/dss/dispc.c
@@ -2090,9 +2090,8 @@ static s32 pixinc(int pixels, u8 ps)
return 1 + (pixels - 1) * ps;
else if (pixels < 0)
return 1 - (-pixels + 1) * ps;
- else
- BUG();
- return 0;
+
+ BUG();
}
static void calc_offset(u16 screen_width, u16 width,
--
2.29.2
_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
