The outer if already checks for data != 0, so it can't really be
0. Hence remove it.
Now I don't have specs or anything for this beast, so I have no
idea whether this was actually intended or whether the logic
should be different. At least the code still seems to be doing
something useful.
Spotted by coverity.
Cc: Dave Airlie <airlied@xxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@xxxxxxxx>
---
drivers/gpu/drm/ast/ast_post.c | 2 --
1 file changed, 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/ast/ast_post.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/ast/ast_post.c
index 977cfb35837a..6263116054b6 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/ast/ast_post.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/ast/ast_post.c
@@ -572,8 +572,6 @@ static u32 cbr_scan2(struct ast_private *ast)
for (loop = 0; loop < CBR_PASSNUM2; loop++) {
if ((data = cbr_test2(ast)) != 0) {
data2 &= data;
- if (!data)
- return 0;
break;
}
}
--
1.8.5.2
_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
