[PATCH 1/6] drm/ast: Remove redundant else in atomic_check

[Aditya Garg]

> On 25 Feb 2025, at 5:19 PM, Thomas Zimmermann <tzimmermann at suse.de> wrote:
> 
> Hi
> 
>> Am 25.02.25 um 12:06 schrieb Aditya Garg:
>> From: Aditya Garg <gargaditya08 at live.com>
>> 
>> Remove the redundant else statement from atomic_check since the previous if
>> statement was returning if true.
>> 
>> Signed-off-by: Aditya Garg <gargaditya08 at live.com>
>> ---
>>  drivers/gpu/drm/ast/ast_mode.c | 5 +++--
>>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>> 
>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/ast/ast_mode.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/ast/ast_mode.c
>> index 9d5321c81..3817d1e4c 100644
>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/ast/ast_mode.c
>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/ast/ast_mode.c
>> @@ -610,9 +610,10 @@ static int ast_primary_plane_helper_atomic_check(struct drm_plane *plane,
>>                            DRM_PLANE_NO_SCALING,
>>                            DRM_PLANE_NO_SCALING,
>>                            false, true);
>> -    if (ret) {
>> +    if (ret)
>>          return ret;
>> -    } else if (!new_plane_state->visible) {
>> +
>> +    if (!new_plane_state->visible) {
> 
> I've seen this posted before.
> 
> The reason why there is an 'else' branch here is that both branches handle the state returned by the function call above, drm_atomic_helper_check_plane_state(). First it does an error check, and then it tests for >visible. In both cases, the plane's atomic_check should return. And only if we have a valid and visible plane, we do the actual checks on the plane. Conceptually, these if-else cases belong together and signal an early-out from the call.
> 
> I'd prefer to keep the drivers as they are.

Alright, should this be kept in the appletbdrm driver as well then?