On Mon, 2016-07-18 at 13:26 +0200, Thierry Reding wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I've run across what I think is a false positive for checkpatch's
> UNNECESSARY_ELSE check. The code that triggers it is in the
> tegra_sor_probe() function in drivers/gpu/drm/tegra/sor.c. For
> reference, here's the code:
>
> if (sor->soc->supports_hdmi) {
> sor->ops = &tegra_sor_hdmi_ops;
> } else if (sor->soc->supports_lvds) {
> dev_err(&pdev->dev, "LVDS not supported yet\n");
> return -ENODEV;
> } else {
> dev_err(&pdev->dev, "unknown (non-DP) support\n");
> return -ENODEV;
> }
>
> For the first case (HDMI supported on SoC) the code should continue
> normally, but otherwise we need to error out because we don't support
> the configuration.
>
> I can't come up with an alternative way of writing the above, and at the
> same time I can't see what's wrong with the above. It looks like a
> legitimate use of an else to me.
>
> I made an attempt at fixing the check myself but failed miserably. Regex
> isn't among my strong skills =\
>
> Any ideas on how to deal with this?
Hi Thierry.
Ignore checkpatch when it's wrong.
The message is:
"else is not generally useful after a break or return"
and that statement is true.
checkpatch is not, and will not become, a code flow
analysis tool. It's a very brain-dead, stupid little
script that looks at very simple patch table rules.
