It took me several seconds to correctly understand this block. I
understand the goal: showing that we are in the if, or in one of the two
other cases. Improve the organization of the code to both improve
readability and fix the style.

Suggested-by: Pratyush Yadav <pratyush@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Miquel Raynal (Schneider Electric) <miquel.raynal@bootlin.com>
---
 drivers/spi/spi-cadence-quadspi.c | 15 +++++----------
 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/spi/spi-cadence-quadspi.c b/drivers/spi/spi-cadence-quadspi.c
index cc28da7fc686..c0a507953c58 100644
--- a/drivers/spi/spi-cadence-quadspi.c
+++ b/drivers/spi/spi-cadence-quadspi.c
@@ -374,17 +374,12 @@ static irqreturn_t cqspi_irq_handler(int this_irq, void *dev)
 	/* Clear interrupt */
 	writel(irq_status, cqspi->iobase + CQSPI_REG_IRQSTATUS);
 
-	if (cqspi->use_dma_read && ddata && ddata->get_dma_status) {
-		if (ddata->get_dma_status(cqspi)) {
-			complete(&cqspi->transfer_complete);
-			return IRQ_HANDLED;
-		}
-	}
-
-	else if (!cqspi->slow_sram)
-		irq_status &= CQSPI_IRQ_MASK_RD | CQSPI_IRQ_MASK_WR;
-	else
+	if (cqspi->use_dma_read && ddata && ddata->get_dma_status)
+		irq_status = ddata->get_dma_status(cqspi);
+	else if (cqspi->slow_sram)
 		irq_status &= CQSPI_IRQ_MASK_RD_SLOW_SRAM | CQSPI_IRQ_MASK_WR;
+	else
+		irq_status &= CQSPI_IRQ_MASK_RD | CQSPI_IRQ_MASK_WR;
 
 	if (irq_status)
 		complete(&cqspi->transfer_complete);

-- 
2.51.1