[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAHp75Ve7404BFgitG=HNKP0EyZN-Uoa=JOhGvaKz1N1ERs=eXQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2017 13:21:17 +0300
From: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
To: Christos Gkekas <chris.gekas@...il.com>
Cc: Darren Hart <dvhart@...radead.org>,
Andy Shevchenko <andy@...radead.org>,
Platform Driver <platform-driver-x86@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] intel-oaktrail: Clean up dead code
On Mon, Oct 9, 2017 at 1:57 AM, Christos Gkekas <chris.gekas@...il.com> wrote:
> A couple of macros are unused and need to be removed.
> Also variable percent is unsigned so checking whether it is less than
> zero is redundant.
> -#define OT_EC_CAMERA_MASK (1 << 0)
> #define OT_EC_BT_MASK (1 << 1)
> #define OT_EC_GPS_MASK (1 << 2)
> #define OT_EC_WIFI_MASK (1 << 3)
> #define OT_EC_WWAN_MASK (1 << 4)
> -#define OT_EC_TS_MASK (1 << 5)
While they are unused they won't bring any additional code to the binary.
The rationale to leave them is to have a bit descriptions in the code,
so, anyone who is in possession of that old and rare hardware can do
some tests or amendments without searching looking to documentation.
> - if (percent < 0 || percent > OT_EC_BL_BRIGHTNESS_MAX)
> + if (percent > OT_EC_BL_BRIGHTNESS_MAX)
> return -EINVAL;
While it's true, doesn't compiler take care about that?
https://lkml.org/lkml/2006/11/28/206
So, unfortunately I have no reason to take it.
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
Powered by blists - more mailing lists