Hello Vinod Koul,

The patch ea12aa4acd70: "ASoC: Intel: sst: Add IPC handling" from Oct 16, 2014, leads to the following static checker warning:

sound/soc/intel/sst/sst_ipc.c:340 sst_process_reply_mrfld() warn: we tested 'drv_id' before and it was 'true'

sound/soc/intel/sst/sst_ipc.c 330 drv_id = msg_high.part.drv_id; 331 332 /* Check for async messages first */ 333 if (drv_id == SST_ASYNC_DRV_ID) { ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ This is zero.

334 /*FW sent async large message*/ 335 process_fw_async_msg(sst_drv_ctx, msg); 336 return; 337 } 338 339 /* FW sent short error response for an IPC */ 340 if (msg_high.part.result && drv_id && !msg_high.part.large) { ^^^^^^ So this is non-zero. The thinking behind these warnings is that maybe a different test was intended. What does a non-zero drv_id mean which is different from checking SST_ASYNC_DRV_ID? The intent is not clear.

In other words, would it be more readable to test "drv_id != SST_ASYNC_DRV_ID"? But in that case, we would just leave the test out since we obviously tested for that earlier.

341 /* 32-bit FW error code in msg_low */ 342 dev_err(sst_drv_ctx->dev, "FW sent error response 0x%x", msg_low); 343 sst_wake_up_block(sst_drv_ctx, msg_high.part.result, 344 msg_high.part.drv_id, 345 msg_high.part.msg_id, NULL, 0); 346 return; 347 } 348

regards, dan carpenter