ACK: [PATCH 21/21] FADT: remove no longer useful variables from test1

[Colin Ian King]

On 09/02/16 23:30, Al Stone wrote:
> On 02/09/2016 05:34 AM, Colin Ian King wrote:
>> On 09/02/16 01:33, Al Stone wrote:
>>> Now that the tests have been resequenced, added to, and generally
>>> overhauled, clean up some variables in test1 that are no longer
>>> useful.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Al Stone <al.stone at linaro.org>
>>> ---
>>>  src/acpi/fadt/fadt.c | 4 ----
>>>  1 file changed, 4 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/src/acpi/fadt/fadt.c b/src/acpi/fadt/fadt.c
>>> index 05205cb..fbc71fd 100644
>>> --- a/src/acpi/fadt/fadt.c
>>> +++ b/src/acpi/fadt/fadt.c
>>> @@ -1514,8 +1514,6 @@ static void acpi_table_check_fadt_sleep_status_reg(fwts_framework *fw)
>>>  
>>>  static int fadt_test1(fwts_framework *fw)
>>>  {
>>> -	bool passed = true;
>>> -
>>>  	acpi_table_check_fadt_firmware_ctrl(fw);
>>>  	acpi_table_check_fadt_dsdt(fw);
>>>  	acpi_table_check_fadt_reserved(fw);
>>> @@ -1589,8 +1587,6 @@ static int fadt_test1(fwts_framework *fw)
>>>  	 */
>>>  	fwts_log_info(fw, "FADT Hypervisor Vendor Identity is %" PRIu64,
>>>  		      fadt->hypervisor_id);
>>> -	if (passed)
>>> -		fwts_passed(fw, "No issues found in FADT table.");
>>>  
>>>  	return FWTS_OK;
>>>  }
>>>
>> Acked-by: Colin Ian King <colin.king at canonical.com>
>>
>> Thanks Al for all these improvements.  Are there any fwts-test patches
>> to come later?
>>
>> Colin
>>
> 
> Thanks for all the review.  This turned out a lot bigger than I thought
> it might so I appreciate the patience involved.
> 
> I did run make check but I did not get any regression test failures that
> I had not already seen and reported or fixed (there's a previous series
> called "Update several regression tests" that still needs to be ACKd and
> pulled in, btw).  I'll double check that, of course, and send anything
> I find along.
> 
> Or, were you expecting new sections in fwts-test?  I hadn't really thought
> that about it, if that's what's being asked....is there a rule of thumb
> the project follows that applies here?
> 
No worries about extra tests for now. Let's see how this patch set
shakes down on a range of firmware over the next few release cycles.

Colin