[PATCH] cpufreq: nforce2: Remove meaningless return

[PATCH] cpufreq: nforce2: Remove meaningless return

[Yangtao Li]

In a function whose return type is void, returning on the last line is
not required.So remove it.Also move the module declaration to the end.

Signed-off-by: Yangtao Li <tiny.windzz@gmail.com>
---
 drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq-nforce2.c | 11 ++++-------
 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq-nforce2.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq-nforce2.c
index dbf82f36d270..ccff1f2a7c25 100644
--- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq-nforce2.c
+++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq-nforce2.c
@@ -47,10 +47,6 @@ static int fid;
 static int min_fsb;
 static int max_fsb;
 
-MODULE_AUTHOR("Sebastian Witt <se.witt@gmx.net>");
-MODULE_DESCRIPTION("nForce2 FSB changing cpufreq driver");
-MODULE_LICENSE("GPL");
-
 module_param(fid, int, 0444);
 module_param(min_fsb, int, 0444);
 
@@ -123,8 +119,6 @@ static void nforce2_write_pll(int pll)
 	/* Now write the value in all 64 registers */
 	for (temp = 0; temp <= 0x3f; temp++)
 		pci_write_config_dword(nforce2_dev, NFORCE2_PLLREG, pll);
-
-	return;
 }
 
 /**
@@ -436,6 +430,9 @@ static void __exit nforce2_exit(void)
 	cpufreq_unregister_driver(&nforce2_driver);
 }
 
+MODULE_AUTHOR("Sebastian Witt <se.witt@gmx.net>");
+MODULE_DESCRIPTION("nForce2 FSB changing cpufreq driver");
+MODULE_LICENSE("GPL");
+
 module_init(nforce2_init);
 module_exit(nforce2_exit);
-
-- 
2.17.0

Re: [PATCH] cpufreq: nforce2: Remove meaningless return

[Rafael J. Wysocki]

On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 3:26 PM Yangtao Li <tiny.windzz@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> In a function whose return type is void, returning on the last line is
> not required.So remove it.Also move the module declaration to the end.

The last piece is not reflected by the subject.

Also, why do you move the MODULE_ stuff around at all?

>
> Signed-off-by: Yangtao Li <tiny.windzz@gmail.com>
> ---
>  drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq-nforce2.c | 11 ++++-------
>  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq-nforce2.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq-nforce2.c
> index dbf82f36d270..ccff1f2a7c25 100644
> --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq-nforce2.c
> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq-nforce2.c
> @@ -47,10 +47,6 @@ static int fid;
>  static int min_fsb;
>  static int max_fsb;
>
> -MODULE_AUTHOR("Sebastian Witt <se.witt@gmx.net>");
> -MODULE_DESCRIPTION("nForce2 FSB changing cpufreq driver");
> -MODULE_LICENSE("GPL");
> -
>  module_param(fid, int, 0444);
>  module_param(min_fsb, int, 0444);
>
> @@ -123,8 +119,6 @@ static void nforce2_write_pll(int pll)
>         /* Now write the value in all 64 registers */
>         for (temp = 0; temp <= 0x3f; temp++)
>                 pci_write_config_dword(nforce2_dev, NFORCE2_PLLREG, pll);
> -
> -       return;
>  }
>
>  /**
> @@ -436,6 +430,9 @@ static void __exit nforce2_exit(void)
>         cpufreq_unregister_driver(&nforce2_driver);
>  }
>
> +MODULE_AUTHOR("Sebastian Witt <se.witt@gmx.net>");
> +MODULE_DESCRIPTION("nForce2 FSB changing cpufreq driver");
> +MODULE_LICENSE("GPL");
> +
>  module_init(nforce2_init);
>  module_exit(nforce2_exit);
> -
> --
> 2.17.0
>

Re: [PATCH] cpufreq: nforce2: Remove meaningless return

[Frank Lee]

On Mon, Dec 3, 2018 at 5:14 PM Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 3:26 PM Yangtao Li <tiny.windzz@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > In a function whose return type is void, returning on the last line is
> > not required.So remove it.Also move the module declaration to the end.
>
> The last piece is not reflected by the subject.
>
> Also, why do you move the MODULE_ stuff around at all?
When writing a driver, in most cases MODULE_  are put to the end.
Why not modify this? it is more in line with the habits of most people.

Yours,
Yangtao
>
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Yangtao Li <tiny.windzz@gmail.com>
> > ---
> >  drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq-nforce2.c | 11 ++++-------
> >  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq-nforce2.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq-nforce2.c
> > index dbf82f36d270..ccff1f2a7c25 100644
> > --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq-nforce2.c
> > +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq-nforce2.c
> > @@ -47,10 +47,6 @@ static int fid;
> >  static int min_fsb;
> >  static int max_fsb;
> >
> > -MODULE_AUTHOR("Sebastian Witt <se.witt@gmx.net>");
> > -MODULE_DESCRIPTION("nForce2 FSB changing cpufreq driver");
> > -MODULE_LICENSE("GPL");
> > -
> >  module_param(fid, int, 0444);
> >  module_param(min_fsb, int, 0444);
> >
> > @@ -123,8 +119,6 @@ static void nforce2_write_pll(int pll)
> >         /* Now write the value in all 64 registers */
> >         for (temp = 0; temp <= 0x3f; temp++)
> >                 pci_write_config_dword(nforce2_dev, NFORCE2_PLLREG, pll);
> > -
> > -       return;
> >  }
> >
> >  /**
> > @@ -436,6 +430,9 @@ static void __exit nforce2_exit(void)
> >         cpufreq_unregister_driver(&nforce2_driver);
> >  }
> >
> > +MODULE_AUTHOR("Sebastian Witt <se.witt@gmx.net>");
> > +MODULE_DESCRIPTION("nForce2 FSB changing cpufreq driver");
> > +MODULE_LICENSE("GPL");
> > +
> >  module_init(nforce2_init);
> >  module_exit(nforce2_exit);
> > -
> > --
> > 2.17.0
> >

Re: [PATCH] cpufreq: nforce2: Remove meaningless return

[Rafael J. Wysocki]

On Tue, Dec 4, 2018 at 2:15 AM Frank Lee <tiny.windzz@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Dec 3, 2018 at 5:14 PM Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael@kernel.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 3:26 PM Yangtao Li <tiny.windzz@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > In a function whose return type is void, returning on the last line is
> > > not required.So remove it.Also move the module declaration to the end.
> >
> > The last piece is not reflected by the subject.
> >
> > Also, why do you move the MODULE_ stuff around at all?
> When writing a driver, in most cases MODULE_  are put to the end.
> Why not modify this? it is more in line with the habits of most people.

If you write a new driver, then yes.

But why do you want to modify existing drivers this way?  What value
do you see in those changes, exactly?

Re: [PATCH] cpufreq: nforce2: Remove meaningless return

[Frank Lee]

On Tue, Dec 4, 2018 at 4:46 PM Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Dec 4, 2018 at 2:15 AM Frank Lee <tiny.windzz@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Dec 3, 2018 at 5:14 PM Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael@kernel.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 3:26 PM Yangtao Li <tiny.windzz@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > In a function whose return type is void, returning on the last line is
> > > > not required.So remove it.Also move the module declaration to the end.
> > >
> > > The last piece is not reflected by the subject.
> > >
> > > Also, why do you move the MODULE_ stuff around at all?
> > When writing a driver, in most cases MODULE_  are put to the end.
> > Why not modify this? it is more in line with the habits of most people.
>
> If you write a new driver, then yes.
>
> But why do you want to modify existing drivers this way?  What value
> do you see in those changes, exactly?
OK.I'll update this.

MBR,
Yangtao