On 04/05/2014 02:44 AM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> 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;
That feels like a typo... was that supposed to be 'if (!data2)'?
> break;
> }
> }
>
_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
