[PATCH 08/13] drm/ast: Remove dead code from cbr_scan2
On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 5:28 PM, Ian Romanick 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
>> Signed-off-by: Daniel Vetter
>> ---
>> 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
[PATCH 08/13] drm/ast: Remove dead code from cbr_scan2
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
> Signed-off-by: Daniel Vetter
> ---
> 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;
> }
> }
>
[PATCH 08/13] drm/ast: Remove dead code from cbr_scan2
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
Signed-off-by: Daniel Vetter
---
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;
break;
}
}
--
1.8.5.2
