[PATCH] drm/omap: fix misleading indentation in pixinc()

[PATCH] drm/omap: fix misleading indentation in pixinc()

[Arnd Bergmann]

From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>

An old patch added a 'return' statement after each BUG() in this driver,
which was necessary at the time, but has become redundant after the BUG()
definition was updated to handle this properly.

gcc-11 now warns about one such instance, where the 'return' statement
was incorrectly indented:

drivers/gpu/drm/omapdrm/dss/dispc.c: In function ‘pixinc’:
drivers/gpu/drm/omapdrm/dss/dispc.c:2093:9: error: this ‘else’ clause does not guard... [-Werror=misleading-indentation]
 2093 |         else
      |         ^~~~
drivers/gpu/drm/omapdrm/dss/dispc.c:2095:17: note: ...this statement, but the latter is misleadingly indented as if it were guarded by the ‘else’
 2095 |                 return 0;
      |                 ^~~~~~

Address this by removing the return again and changing the BUG()
to be unconditional to make this more intuitive.

Fixes: c6eee968d40d ("OMAPDSS: remove compiler warnings when CONFIG_BUG=n")
Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
---
 drivers/gpu/drm/omapdrm/dss/dispc.c | 5 ++---
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/omapdrm/dss/dispc.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/omapdrm/dss/dispc.c
index f4cbef8ccace..5619420cc2cc 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/omapdrm/dss/dispc.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/omapdrm/dss/dispc.c
@@ -2090,9 +2090,8 @@ static s32 pixinc(int pixels, u8 ps)
 		return 1 + (pixels - 1) * ps;
 	else if (pixels < 0)
 		return 1 - (-pixels + 1) * ps;
-	else
-		BUG();
-		return 0;
+
+	BUG();
 }
 
 static void calc_offset(u16 screen_width, u16 width,
-- 
2.29.2

_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel

Re: [PATCH] drm/omap: fix misleading indentation in pixinc()

[Tomi Valkeinen]

On 22/03/2021 18:41, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
> 
> An old patch added a 'return' statement after each BUG() in this driver,
> which was necessary at the time, but has become redundant after the BUG()
> definition was updated to handle this properly.
> 
> gcc-11 now warns about one such instance, where the 'return' statement
> was incorrectly indented:
> 
> drivers/gpu/drm/omapdrm/dss/dispc.c: In function ‘pixinc’:
> drivers/gpu/drm/omapdrm/dss/dispc.c:2093:9: error: this ‘else’ clause does not guard... [-Werror=misleading-indentation]
>   2093 |         else
>        |         ^~~~
> drivers/gpu/drm/omapdrm/dss/dispc.c:2095:17: note: ...this statement, but the latter is misleadingly indented as if it were guarded by the ‘else’
>   2095 |                 return 0;
>        |                 ^~~~~~
> 
> Address this by removing the return again and changing the BUG()
> to be unconditional to make this more intuitive.
> 
> Fixes: c6eee968d40d ("OMAPDSS: remove compiler warnings when CONFIG_BUG=n")
> Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
> ---
>   drivers/gpu/drm/omapdrm/dss/dispc.c | 5 ++---
>   1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/omapdrm/dss/dispc.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/omapdrm/dss/dispc.c
> index f4cbef8ccace..5619420cc2cc 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/omapdrm/dss/dispc.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/omapdrm/dss/dispc.c
> @@ -2090,9 +2090,8 @@ static s32 pixinc(int pixels, u8 ps)
>   		return 1 + (pixels - 1) * ps;
>   	else if (pixels < 0)
>   		return 1 - (-pixels + 1) * ps;
> -	else
> -		BUG();
> -		return 0;
> +
> +	BUG();
>   }
>   
>   static void calc_offset(u16 screen_width, u16 width,

Thanks, I'll pick this up.

  Tomi
_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel