Hi
Am 25.02.25 um 12:06 schrieb Aditya Garg:
From: Aditya Garg <gargaditya08@xxxxxxxx>
Remove the redundant else statement from atomic_check since the previous if
statement was returning if true.
Signed-off-by: Aditya Garg <gargaditya08@xxxxxxxx>
---
drivers/gpu/drm/ast/ast_mode.c | 5 +++--
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/ast/ast_mode.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/ast/ast_mode.c
index 9d5321c81..3817d1e4c 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/ast/ast_mode.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/ast/ast_mode.c
@@ -610,9 +610,10 @@ static int ast_primary_plane_helper_atomic_check(struct drm_plane *plane,
DRM_PLANE_NO_SCALING,
DRM_PLANE_NO_SCALING,
false, true);
- if (ret) {
+ if (ret)
return ret;
- } else if (!new_plane_state->visible) {
+
+ if (!new_plane_state->visible) {
I've seen this posted before.
The reason why there is an 'else' branch here is that both branches
handle the state returned by the function call above,
drm_atomic_helper_check_plane_state(). First it does an error check, and
then it tests for >visible. In both cases, the plane's atomic_check
should return. And only if we have a valid and visible plane, we do the
actual checks on the plane. Conceptually, these if-else cases belong
together and signal an early-out from the call.
I'd prefer to keep the drivers as they are.
Best regards
Thomas
if (drm_WARN_ON(dev, new_plane_state->crtc)) /* cannot legally happen */
return -EINVAL;
else
--
--
Thomas Zimmermann
Graphics Driver Developer
SUSE Software Solutions Germany GmbH
Frankenstrasse 146, 90461 Nuernberg, Germany
GF: Ivo Totev, Andrew Myers, Andrew McDonald, Boudien Moerman
HRB 36809 (AG Nuernberg)
