On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 5:28 PM, Ian Romanick idr@freedesktop.org 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@redhat.com Signed-off-by: Daniel Vetter daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch
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