[PATCH] ASoC: codecs: aw88261: small cleanup in aw88261_set_tdm_slot()

[PATCH] ASoC: codecs: aw88261: small cleanup in aw88261_set_tdm_slot()

[Dan Carpenter]

This code triggers a Smatch false positive:

    sound/soc/codecs/aw88261.c:858 aw88261_set_tdm_slot()
    error: uninitialized symbol 'chan'.

This would only happen if both the tx and rx masks were zero which is
a nonsense scenario and reviewing the callers shows that it never
happens.

However, if the rx_mask is zero then we're comparing the mask from RX
against the chan from TX which is confusing:

	if ((rx_mask & ~BIT(chan)) != 0) {
             ^^ rx          ^^^^ tx chan

Of course, in that case the condition is going to be false because
the rx_mask is zero.  So it's fine.  But it would be more clear to move
the condition inside the if statement and it silences the static checker
warning as well.

Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <error27@gmail.com>
---
From code review.  Untested.

 sound/soc/codecs/aw88261.c | 10 +++++-----
 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)

diff --git a/sound/soc/codecs/aw88261.c b/sound/soc/codecs/aw88261.c
index b8d06534bc8f..8671069f4c18 100644
--- a/sound/soc/codecs/aw88261.c
+++ b/sound/soc/codecs/aw88261.c
@@ -853,13 +853,13 @@ static int aw88261_set_tdm_slot(struct snd_soc_dai *dai,
 			return -EINVAL;
 
 		aw88261->rxl_slotvld_mask = chan << AW88261_I2S_RXL_SLOTVLD_START_BIT;
-	}
 
-	if ((rx_mask & ~BIT(chan)) != 0) {
-		if ((chan = __ffs(rx_mask & ~BIT(chan))) > 16)
-			return -EINVAL;
+		if ((rx_mask & ~BIT(chan)) != 0) {
+			if ((chan = __ffs(rx_mask & ~BIT(chan))) > 16)
+				return -EINVAL;
 
-		aw88261->rxr_slotvld_mask = chan << AW88261_I2S_RXR_SLOTVLD_START_BIT;
+			aw88261->rxr_slotvld_mask = chan << AW88261_I2S_RXR_SLOTVLD_START_BIT;
+		}
 	}
 
 	return 0;
-- 
2.53.0