Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
From:   "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>
To:     Ding Xiang <dingxiang@cmss.chinamobile.com>
Cc:     viresh.kumar@linaro.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] cpufreq: acpi: Remove some redundant code
Date:   Mon, 20 Aug 2018 11:10:57 +0200
Message-ID: <1630840.jvZHOqyeXS@aspire.rjw.lan>
In-Reply-To: <1534760111-31614-1-git-send-email-dingxiang@cmss.chinamobile.com>
References: <1534760111-31614-1-git-send-email-dingxiang@cmss.chinamobile.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

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 <dingxiang@cmss.chinamobile.com>
> ---
>  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?