[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <E1t1P42-000EKd-5S@rmk-PC.armlinux.org.uk>
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2024 12:53:10 +0100
From: "Russell King (Oracle)" <rmk+kernel@...linux.org.uk>
To: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@...il.com>
Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
Jose Abreu <Jose.Abreu@...opsys.com>,
netdev@...r.kernel.org,
Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>
Subject: [PATCH net-next 7/7] net: pcs: xpcs: remove return statements in void
function
While using "return" when calling a void returning function inside a
function that returns void doesn't cause a compiler warning, it looks
weird. Convert the bunch of if() statements to a switch() and remove
these return statements.
Signed-off-by: Russell King (Oracle) <rmk+kernel@...linux.org.uk>
---
drivers/net/pcs/pcs-xpcs.c | 19 +++++++++++++------
1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/net/pcs/pcs-xpcs.c b/drivers/net/pcs/pcs-xpcs.c
index 89ceedc0f18b..7246a910728d 100644
--- a/drivers/net/pcs/pcs-xpcs.c
+++ b/drivers/net/pcs/pcs-xpcs.c
@@ -1140,13 +1140,20 @@ static void xpcs_link_up(struct phylink_pcs *pcs, unsigned int neg_mode,
{
struct dw_xpcs *xpcs = phylink_pcs_to_xpcs(pcs);
- if (interface == PHY_INTERFACE_MODE_USXGMII)
- return xpcs_link_up_usxgmii(xpcs, speed);
+ switch (interface) {
+ case PHY_INTERFACE_MODE_USXGMII:
+ xpcs_link_up_usxgmii(xpcs, speed);
+ break;
+
+ case PHY_INTERFACE_MODE_SGMII:
+ case PHY_INTERFACE_MODE_1000BASEX:
+ xpcs_link_up_sgmii_1000basex(xpcs, neg_mode, interface, speed,
+ duplex);
+ break;
- if (interface == PHY_INTERFACE_MODE_SGMII ||
- interface == PHY_INTERFACE_MODE_1000BASEX)
- return xpcs_link_up_sgmii_1000basex(xpcs, neg_mode, interface,
- speed, duplex);
+ default:
+ break;
+ }
}
static void xpcs_an_restart(struct phylink_pcs *pcs)
--
2.30.2
Powered by blists - more mailing lists