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@linux.alibaba.com>
Closes: https://bugzilla.openanolis.cn/show_bug.cgi?id=8812
Signed-off-by: Jiapeng Chong <jiapeng.chong@linux.alibaba.com>
---
 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;
 	case MLO_0_PLUS_2_2RF:
 	case MLO_2_PLUS_0_2RF:
 	case MLO_2_PLUS_2_2RF:
-- 
2.20.1.7.g153144c

Jiapeng Chong <jiapeng.chong@linux.alibaba.com> 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@linux.alibaba.com>
> Closes: https://bugzilla.openanolis.cn/show_bug.cgi?id=8812
> Signed-off-by: Jiapeng Chong <jiapeng.chong@linux.alibaba.com>
> ---
>  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
>