Re: [PATCH RFC] video: fbdev: sis: condition with no effect

On Thu, Feb 5, 2015 at 9:45 PM, Scot Doyle wrote:

On Wed, 4 Feb 2015, Nicholas Mc Guire wrote:

quoted

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 <redacted>
---

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?

Are we sure there isn't a typo in one of the duplicate clauses? Or
wrong copy-pasting? Generally I am skeptical to "fixing" code without
understanding what is behind or testing it, and just cosmetically
brush over it. For now at least it is obvious that there is something
wrong. In case (although an unlikely one) someone who understands the
code and knows this chip comes along, he would quickly spot this.
After your "fixups" this will be all forgotten. Additionally it adds
to the impression that this code is being maintained, which is wrong.

I would understand an argument about annoying compiler warnings and
the like, but in that case I would prefer to #if 0 it instead of
"prettifying" it.

0.02
Tormod