This code checks "if (parent_hw)" is non-NULL, but then it has more
checks if parent_hw is non-NULL on the lines inside the if statement.
It is a bit confusing.
For the else statement, keep in mind that at the start of the function
we checked:
if (!(parent_name || parent_hw))
return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL);
That check ensures that if parent_hw is NULL that means that parent_name
is non-NULL. At least one must always be non-NULL. So here again, the
checks inside the if statement can be removed.
In the original code, it was a bit confusing and you could easily get
the impression that "init.num_parents" could be zero. When we remove
the unnecessary checking it's more obvious that it's always set to 1.
Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
drivers/clk/at91/clk-utmi.c | 12 +++++-------
1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/clk/at91/clk-utmi.c b/drivers/clk/at91/clk-utmi.c
index 40c84f5af5e8..b991180beea1 100644
--- a/drivers/clk/at91/clk-utmi.c
+++ b/drivers/clk/at91/clk-utmi.c
@@ -161,13 +161,11 @@ at91_clk_register_utmi_internal(struct regmap *regmap_pmc,
init.name = name;
init.ops = ops;
- if (parent_hw) {
- init.parent_hws = parent_hw ? (const struct clk_hw **)&parent_hw : NULL;
- init.num_parents = parent_hw ? 1 : 0;
- } else {
- init.parent_names = parent_name ? &parent_name : NULL;
- init.num_parents = parent_name ? 1 : 0;
- }
+ if (parent_hw)
+ init.parent_hws = (const struct clk_hw **)&parent_hw;
+ else
+ init.parent_names = &parent_name;
+ init.num_parents = 1;
init.flags = flags;
utmi->hw.init = &init;
--
2.39.2
