On Thu, Dec 22, 2022 at 10:20:13PM +0100, Martin Blumenstingl wrote:
> Hi Guenter et al.,
>
> On Thu, Dec 22, 2022 at 3:36 PM kernel test robot <lkp@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> [...]
> > 475 static bool jc42_readable_reg(struct device *dev, unsigned int reg)
> > 476 {
> > > 477 return (reg >= JC42_REG_CAP && reg <= JC42_REG_DEVICEID) ||
> > 478 reg == JC42_REG_SMBUS;
> The bot is right: we can omit "reg >= JC42_REG_CAP" as it's already
> covered by the fact that:
> - the reg variable is unsigned, which means the lower limit is zero
> - reg <= JC42_REG_DEVICEID covers the upper limit
>
> Before I send a patch I'd like to hear if removal of "reg >=
> JC42_REG_CAP" makes sense to other people.
>
The bot keeps complaining about it. Yes, it is technically unnecessary,
but I left it in on purpose to indicate that JC42_REG_CAP is the first
register and that it wasn't forgotten. Any modern C compiler notices
that the check is unnecessary and drops it, so there is no runtime penalty.
This is one of those situations where I'd like to have a means to tell
the checker to please stop complaining.
Guenter
