On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 5:28 PM, Ian Romanick <idr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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)'?
Yeah this one really needs a close look, since I have no idea what's
actually intended behaviour. The patch just removes the dead code as
it is now, and the double-loop still makes some sense imo after this
change. But I really don't know the spec for this hw.
-Daniel
--
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
+41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch
_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
