On Thu, 2018-04-05 at 01:25 +0000, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> While doing some static analysis I came across the following piece of code at
> drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtlwifi/btcoexist/halbtc8821a1ant.c:1581:
>
> 1581 static void btc8821a1ant_act_bt_sco_hid_only_busy(struct btc_coexist
> *btcoexist,
> 1582 u8 wifi_status)
> 1583 {
> 1584 /* tdma and coex table */
> 1585 btc8821a1ant_ps_tdma(btcoexist, NORMAL_EXEC, true, 5);
> 1586
> 1587 if (BT_8821A_1ANT_WIFI_STATUS_NON_CONNECTED_ASSO_AUTH_SCAN ==
> 1588 wifi_status)
> 1589 btc8821a1ant_coex_table_with_type(btcoexist,
> NORMAL_EXEC, 1);
> 1590 else
> 1591 btc8821a1ant_coex_table_with_type(btcoexist,
> NORMAL_EXEC, 1);
> 1592 }
>
> The issue here is that the code for both branches of the if-else statement is
> identical.
>
> The if-else was introduced a year ago in this commit c6821613e653
>
> I wonder if an argument should be changed in any of the calls to
> btc8821a1ant_coex_table_with_type?
>
>
It looks weird. Since we're in spring vacation, I'll check my colleague next
Monday.
PK
