Instead of direct comparison, use proper ACPI macros to check error code
for failures.

While at it, drop unneeded 'else' keyword.

Signed-off-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevche...@linux.intel.com>
---
 drivers/char/ipmi/ipmi_si_platform.c | 12 ++++++------
 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/char/ipmi/ipmi_si_platform.c 
b/drivers/char/ipmi/ipmi_si_platform.c
index 954c297b459b..023c88ea9c4c 100644
--- a/drivers/char/ipmi/ipmi_si_platform.c
+++ b/drivers/char/ipmi/ipmi_si_platform.c
@@ -85,18 +85,18 @@ static int acpi_gpe_irq_setup(struct si_sm_io *io)
                                          ACPI_GPE_LEVEL_TRIGGERED,
                                          &ipmi_acpi_gpe,
                                          io);
-       if (status != AE_OK) {
+       if (ACPI_FAILURE(status)) {
                dev_warn(io->dev,
                         "Unable to claim ACPI GPE %d, running polled\n",
                         io->irq);
                io->irq = 0;
                return -EINVAL;
-       } else {
-               io->irq_cleanup = acpi_gpe_irq_cleanup;
-               ipmi_irq_finish_setup(io);
-               dev_info(io->dev, "Using ACPI GPE %d\n", io->irq);
-               return 0;
        }
+
+       io->irq_cleanup = acpi_gpe_irq_cleanup;
+       ipmi_irq_finish_setup(io);
+       dev_info(io->dev, "Using ACPI GPE %d\n", io->irq);
+       return 0;
 }
 #endif
 
-- 
2.30.2

Reply via email to