[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20221101174255.54452-1-andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2022 19:42:53 +0200
From: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
To: Uwe Kleine-König
<u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>, linux-pwm@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>,
Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: [PATCH v1 1/3] pwm: core: Refactor pwmchip_add() to avoid extra checks
When we already know that everything is fine there is no need
to use ret variable. Refactor code accordingly.
Signed-off-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
---
drivers/pwm/core.c | 10 +++++-----
1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/pwm/core.c b/drivers/pwm/core.c
index d333e7422f4a..855abd0a776f 100644
--- a/drivers/pwm/core.c
+++ b/drivers/pwm/core.c
@@ -296,16 +296,16 @@ int pwmchip_add(struct pwm_chip *chip)
INIT_LIST_HEAD(&chip->list);
list_add(&chip->list, &pwm_chips);
- ret = 0;
-
if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_OF))
of_pwmchip_add(chip);
-out:
mutex_unlock(&pwm_lock);
- if (!ret)
- pwmchip_sysfs_export(chip);
+ pwmchip_sysfs_export(chip);
+
+ return 0;
+out:
+ mutex_unlock(&pwm_lock);
return ret;
}
--
2.35.1
Powered by blists - more mailing lists