Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752687AbbBEUsQ (ORCPT ); Thu, 5 Feb 2015 15:48:16 -0500 Received: from mx1.scotdoyle.com ([23.226.141.211]:40285 "EHLO mx1.scotdoyle.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751099AbbBEUsP (ORCPT ); Thu, 5 Feb 2015 15:48:15 -0500 Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2015 20:45:59 +0000 (UTC) From: Scot Doyle To: Nicholas Mc Guire cc: Thomas Winischhofer , Jean-Christophe Plagniol-Villard , Tomi Valkeinen , linux-fbdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] video: fbdev: sis: condition with no effect In-Reply-To: <1423049774-16305-1-git-send-email-hofrat@osadl.org> Message-ID: References: <1423049774-16305-1-git-send-email-hofrat@osadl.org> User-Agent: Alpine 2.11 (LNX 23 2013-08-11) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2476 Lines: 56 On Wed, 4 Feb 2015, Nicholas Mc Guire wrote: > The if and the else branch code are identical - so the condition has no > effect on the effective code - this patch removes the condition and the > duplicated code. > > Signed-off-by: Nicholas Mc Guire > --- > > This code has been in here since commit 544393fe584d ("sisfb update") so I guess it is > safe to simply remove the duplicated code if nobody noticed for 10 years. > > Note that the code is not really CodingStyle compliant - the lines inserted were formatted > to satisfy the coding style but I'm unsure if it is not better to leave it in the > old format. > > Patch was only compile tested with x86_64_defconfig + > CONFIG_FB_SIS=m, CONFIG_FB_SIS_300=y, CONFIG_FB_SIS_315=y > > Patch is against 3.19.0-rc7 (localversion-next is -next-20150204) > > drivers/video/fbdev/sis/init301.c | 9 ++------- > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/video/fbdev/sis/init301.c b/drivers/video/fbdev/sis/init301.c > index 295e0de..9533a8ab 100644 > --- a/drivers/video/fbdev/sis/init301.c > +++ b/drivers/video/fbdev/sis/init301.c > @@ -7971,13 +7971,8 @@ SiS_SetCHTVReg(struct SiS_Private *SiS_Pr, unsigned short ModeNo, unsigned short > } > } else { /* ---- PAL ---- */ > /* We don't play around with FSCI in PAL mode */ > - if(resindex == 0x04) { > - SiS_SetCH70xxANDOR(SiS_Pr,0x20,0x00,0xEF); /* loop filter off */ > - SiS_SetCH70xxANDOR(SiS_Pr,0x21,0x01,0xFE); /* ACIV on */ > - } else { > - SiS_SetCH70xxANDOR(SiS_Pr,0x20,0x00,0xEF); /* loop filter off */ > - SiS_SetCH70xxANDOR(SiS_Pr,0x21,0x01,0xFE); /* ACIV on */ > - } > + SiS_SetCH70xxANDOR(SiS_Pr, 0x20, 0x00, 0xEF); /* loop filter off */ > + SiS_SetCH70xxANDOR(SiS_Pr, 0x21, 0x01, 0xFE); /* ACIV on */ > } > > #endif /* 300 */ The code covering the PAL case had this redundancy when it was introduced in Linux 2.4.19. Lines 7934-7981 consider three variables: PAL, overscan, and resindex. Given the "#ifdef 0" block, couldn't the current six sections collapse into two? One for (!PAL && overscan && resindex==5) and another for the rest? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/