Removal of a redundant condition that is always true
This was found using a static code analysis program called cppcheck
Signed-off-by: Rickard Strandqvist <redacted>
---
drivers/video/fbdev/sis/init.c | 4 ++--
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
@@ -355,12 +355,12 @@ SiS_GetModeID(int VGAEngine, unsigned int VBFlags, int HDisplay, int VDisplay,}break;case400:-if((!(VBFlags&CRT1_LCDA))||((LCDwidth>=800)&&(LCDwidth>=600))){+if((!(VBFlags&CRT1_LCDA))||(LCDwidth>=600)){if(VDisplay=300)ModeIndex=ModeIndex_400x300[Depth];}break;case512:-if((!(VBFlags&CRT1_LCDA))||((LCDwidth>=1024)&&(LCDwidth>=768))){+if((!(VBFlags&CRT1_LCDA))||(LCDwidth>=768)){if(VDisplay=384)ModeIndex=ModeIndex_512x384[Depth];}break;
@@ -355,12 +355,12 @@ SiS_GetModeID(int VGAEngine, unsigned int VBFlags, int HDisplay, int VDisplay,}break;case400:-if((!(VBFlags&CRT1_LCDA))||((LCDwidth>=800)&&(LCDwidth>=600))){+if((!(VBFlags&CRT1_LCDA))||(LCDwidth>=600)){
It might be that this was supposed to be:
if((!(VBFlags & CRT1_LCDA)) || ((LCDwidth <= 800) && (LCDwidth >= 600))) {
But why would people write a range from high to low? That's crazy
people who write backwards code...
The second condition was supposed to do *something* although it's
unclear what. I would normally say that we should leave the static
checker warning here instead of guessing. Perhaps add a comment like
/* fixme: huh? What's with this nonsense condition? */ But in this
case it's all dead code because LCDwidth is always zero and the code
hasn't changed since 2.6.12 so I don't care.
regards,
dan carpenter
@@ -355,12 +355,12 @@ SiS_GetModeID(int VGAEngine, unsigned int VBFlags, int HDisplay, int VDisplay,}break;case400:-if((!(VBFlags&CRT1_LCDA))||((LCDwidth>=800)&&(LCDwidth>=600))){+if((!(VBFlags&CRT1_LCDA))||(LCDwidth>=600)){
It might be that this was supposed to be:
if((!(VBFlags & CRT1_LCDA)) || ((LCDwidth <= 800) && (LCDwidth >= 600))) {
But why would people write a range from high to low? That's crazy
people who write backwards code...
The numbers 800x600 (1024x768) indicate that LCDheight is meant to be used:
if((!(VBFlags & CRT1_LCDA)) || ((LCDwidth >= 800) &&
(LCDheight >= 600))) {
regards,
Noralf Tronnes
@@ -355,12 +355,12 @@ SiS_GetModeID(int VGAEngine, unsigned int VBFlags,
int HDisplay, int VDisplay,
}
break;
case 400:
- if((!(VBFlags & CRT1_LCDA)) || ((LCDwidth >= 800) &&
(LCDwidth >= 600))) {
+ if ((!(VBFlags & CRT1_LCDA)) || (LCDwidth >= 600)) {
It might be that this was supposed to be:
if((!(VBFlags & CRT1_LCDA)) || ((LCDwidth <= 800) &&
(LCDwidth >= 600))) {
But why would people write a range from high to low? That's crazy
people who write backwards code...
The numbers 800x600 (1024x768) indicate that LCDheight is meant to be used:
if((!(VBFlags & CRT1_LCDA)) || ((LCDwidth >= 800) &&
(LCDheight >= 600))) {
regards,
Noralf Tronnes
Hi
Nice, this is what is the point of fix this type of minor errors.
Sometimes you can find something more serious :)
New patch on the way!
Kind regards
Rickard Strandqvist