2018-08-20 09:14:12

by Ding Xiang

Subject: [PATCH] cpufreq: acpi: Remove some redundant code

For single statement blocks,braces are not necessary.
And "else" is not useful after return. So,remove these code.

Signed-off-by: Ding Xiang <[email protected]>
---
drivers/cpufreq/acpi-cpufreq.c | 10 ++++------
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/acpi-cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/acpi-cpufreq.c
index b61f4ec..0751a0a 100644
--- a/drivers/cpufreq/acpi-cpufreq.c
+++ b/drivers/cpufreq/acpi-cpufreq.c
@@ -423,9 +423,8 @@ static int acpi_cpufreq_target(struct cpufreq_policy *policy,
unsigned int next_perf_state = 0; /* Index into perf table */
int result = 0;

- if (unlikely(!data)) {
+ if (unlikely(!data))
return -ENODEV;
- }

perf = to_perf_data(data);
next_perf_state = policy->freq_table[index].driver_data;
@@ -521,11 +520,10 @@ static unsigned int acpi_cpufreq_fast_switch(struct cpufreq_policy *policy,
}
perf->state = perf->state_count-1;
return freqn;
- } else {
- /* assume CPU is at P0... */
- perf->state = 0;
- return perf->states[0].core_frequency * 1000;
}
+ /* assume CPU is at P0... */
+ perf->state = 0;
+ return perf->states[0].core_frequency * 1000;
}

static void free_acpi_perf_data(void)
--
1.8.3.1

2018-08-20 09:14:39

by Rafael J. Wysocki

Subject: Re: [PATCH] cpufreq: acpi: Remove some redundant code

On Monday, August 20, 2018 12:15:11 PM CEST Ding Xiang wrote:
> For single statement blocks,braces are not necessary.
> And "else" is not useful after return. So,remove these code.
>
> Signed-off-by: Ding Xiang <[email protected]>
> ---
> drivers/cpufreq/acpi-cpufreq.c | 10 ++++------
> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/acpi-cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/acpi-cpufreq.c
> index b61f4ec..0751a0a 100644
> --- a/drivers/cpufreq/acpi-cpufreq.c
> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/acpi-cpufreq.c
> @@ -423,9 +423,8 @@ static int acpi_cpufreq_target(struct cpufreq_policy *policy,
> unsigned int next_perf_state = 0; /* Index into perf table */
> int result = 0;
>
> - if (unlikely(!data)) {
> + if (unlikely(!data))
> return -ENODEV;
> - }
>
> perf = to_perf_data(data);
> next_perf_state = policy->freq_table[index].driver_data;
> @@ -521,11 +520,10 @@ static unsigned int acpi_cpufreq_fast_switch(struct cpufreq_policy *policy,
> }
> perf->state = perf->state_count-1;
> return freqn;
> - } else {
> - /* assume CPU is at P0... */
> - perf->state = 0;
> - return perf->states[0].core_frequency * 1000;
> }
> + /* assume CPU is at P0... */
> + perf->state = 0;
> + return perf->states[0].core_frequency * 1000;
> }
>
> static void free_acpi_perf_data(void)
>

So what exactly is the value of this patch?