Quoting Dan Carpenter (2023-10-17 07:06:53) > 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> > --- Applied to clk-next
