> On 25 Feb 2025, at 5:19 PM, Thomas Zimmermann <tzimmermann@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Hi
>
>> Am 25.02.25 um 12:06 schrieb Aditya Garg:
>> From: Aditya Garg <gargaditya08@xxxxxxxx>
>>
>> Remove the redundant else statement from atomic_check since the previous if
>> statement was returning if true.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Aditya Garg <gargaditya08@xxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> drivers/gpu/drm/ast/ast_mode.c | 5 +++--
>> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/ast/ast_mode.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/ast/ast_mode.c
>> index 9d5321c81..3817d1e4c 100644
>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/ast/ast_mode.c
>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/ast/ast_mode.c
>> @@ -610,9 +610,10 @@ static int ast_primary_plane_helper_atomic_check(struct drm_plane *plane,
>> DRM_PLANE_NO_SCALING,
>> DRM_PLANE_NO_SCALING,
>> false, true);
>> - if (ret) {
>> + if (ret)
>> return ret;
>> - } else if (!new_plane_state->visible) {
>> +
>> + if (!new_plane_state->visible) {
>
> I've seen this posted before.
>
> The reason why there is an 'else' branch here is that both branches handle the state returned by the function call above, drm_atomic_helper_check_plane_state(). First it does an error check, and then it tests for >visible. In both cases, the plane's atomic_check should return. And only if we have a valid and visible plane, we do the actual checks on the plane. Conceptually, these if-else cases belong together and signal an early-out from the call.
>
> I'd prefer to keep the drivers as they are.
Alright, should this be kept in the appletbdrm driver as well then?
