Displaying 4 results from an estimated 4 matches for "nvif_fifo_runlists".
2024 Jan 16
1
[PATCH][next] drm/nouveau/fifo/gk104: remove redundant variable ret
...b/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nvif/fifo.c
index a463289962b2..e96de14ce87e 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nvif/fifo.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nvif/fifo.c
@@ -73,9 +73,9 @@ u64
nvif_fifo_runlist(struct nvif_device *device, u64 engine)
{
u64 runm = 0;
- int ret, i;
+ int i;
- if ((ret = nvif_fifo_runlists(device)))
+ if (nvif_fifo_runlists(device))
return runm;
for (i = 0; i < device->runlists; i++) {
--
2.39.2
2024 Jan 16
1
[PATCH][next] drm/nouveau/fifo/gk104: remove redundant variable ret
...9962b2..e96de14ce87e 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nvif/fifo.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nvif/fifo.c
> @@ -73,9 +73,9 @@ u64
> nvif_fifo_runlist(struct nvif_device *device, u64 engine)
> {
> u64 runm = 0;
> - int ret, i;
> + int i;
>
> - if ((ret = nvif_fifo_runlists(device)))
> + if (nvif_fifo_runlists(device))
> return runm;
Could we return a literal zero here? Otherwise, I'm surprised this
doesn't trigger a static checker warning.
regards,
dan carpenter
2024 Jan 22
1
[PATCH][next] drm/nouveau/fifo/gk104: remove redundant variable ret
...rivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nvif/fifo.c
>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nvif/fifo.c
>> @@ -73,9 +73,9 @@ u64
>> nvif_fifo_runlist(struct nvif_device *device, u64 engine)
>> {
>> u64 runm = 0;
>> - int ret, i;
>> + int i;
>>
>> - if ((ret = nvif_fifo_runlists(device)))
>> + if (nvif_fifo_runlists(device))
>> return runm;
>
> Could we return a literal zero here? Otherwise, I'm surprised this
> doesn't trigger a static checker warning.
Why do you think so? Conditionally, runm is used later on as well. I don't
think...
2024 Jan 23
1
[PATCH][next] drm/nouveau/fifo/gk104: remove redundant variable ret
...gt; > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nvif/fifo.c
> > > @@ -73,9 +73,9 @@ u64
> > > nvif_fifo_runlist(struct nvif_device *device, u64 engine)
> > > {
> > > u64 runm = 0;
> > > - int ret, i;
> > > + int i;
> > > - if ((ret = nvif_fifo_runlists(device)))
> > > + if (nvif_fifo_runlists(device))
> > > return runm;
> >
> > Could we return a literal zero here? Otherwise, I'm surprised this
> > doesn't trigger a static checker warning.
>
> Why do you think so? Conditionally, runm is used...