From: John Harrison <John.C.Harrison@xxxxxxxxx>
The comparison in the search for a matching register capture node was
not the most readable. It was also assuming that a zero GuC id means
invalid, which it does not. So remove one invalid term, one redundant
term and re-format to keep each term on a single line, and only one
term per line.
Signed-off-by: John Harrison <John.C.Harrison@xxxxxxxxx>
Reviewed-by: Alan Previn <alan.previn.teres.alexis@xxxxxxxxx>
---
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc_capture.c | 5 ++---
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc_capture.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc_capture.c
index 36196cbb24c6b..cf49188db6a6e 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc_capture.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc_capture.c
@@ -1616,9 +1616,8 @@ void intel_guc_capture_get_matching_node(struct intel_gt *gt,
list_for_each_entry_safe(n, ntmp, &guc->capture->outlist, link) {
if (n->eng_inst == GUC_ID_TO_ENGINE_INSTANCE(ee->engine->guc_id) &&
n->eng_class == GUC_ID_TO_ENGINE_CLASS(ee->engine->guc_id) &&
- n->guc_id && n->guc_id == ce->guc_id.id &&
- (n->lrca & CTX_GTT_ADDRESS_MASK) && (n->lrca & CTX_GTT_ADDRESS_MASK) ==
- (ce->lrc.lrca & CTX_GTT_ADDRESS_MASK)) {
+ n->guc_id == ce->guc_id.id &&
+ (n->lrca & CTX_GTT_ADDRESS_MASK) == (ce->lrc.lrca & CTX_GTT_ADDRESS_MASK)) {
list_del(&n->link);
ee->guc_capture_node = n;
ee->guc_capture = guc->capture;
--
2.39.1
