Jiapeng Chong <jiapeng.chong@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Subject: [PATCH] wifi: rtw89: Remove useless else Please point out the stuff like functions you are changing. > > The assignment of the else and if branches is the same, so the else > here is redundant, so we remove it. > > ./drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtw89/phy.c:6406:2-4: WARNING: possible condition with no effect (if == > else). > > Reported-by: Abaci Robot <abaci@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Closes: https://bugzilla.openanolis.cn/show_bug.cgi?id=8812 > Signed-off-by: Jiapeng Chong <jiapeng.chong@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > --- > drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtw89/phy.c | 5 +---- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 4 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtw89/phy.c b/drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtw89/phy.c > index eaa18140d1a8..ca5a098c30a4 100644 > --- a/drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtw89/phy.c > +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtw89/phy.c > @@ -6403,10 +6403,7 @@ enum rtw89_rf_path_bit rtw89_phy_get_kpath(struct rtw89_dev *rtwdev, > return RF_D; > case MLO_0_PLUS_2_1RF: > case MLO_2_PLUS_0_1RF: > - if (phy_idx == RTW89_PHY_0) > - return RF_AB; > - else > - return RF_AB; > + return RF_AB; The PHY configures to corresponding MLO modes are complicated, so RF people always add branches of phy_idx to prevent missing something, and this is intentionally to say two cases are identical. It is fine to apply your patch, but please add a comment to note that, like /* for both PHY 0/1 */ > case MLO_0_PLUS_2_2RF: > case MLO_2_PLUS_0_2RF: > case MLO_2_PLUS_2_2RF: > -- > 2.20.1.7.g153144c >
