The existing code (which I changed last) was very convoluted. I believe
it was attempting to skip the overclock portion if the previous pcode
write failed. When I last touched the code, I was preserving this
behavior. There is some benefit to doing it that way in that if the
first pcode access fails, the later is likely invalid.

Having a bit more confidence in my understanding of how things work, I
now feel it's better to have clear, readable, code than to try to skip
over this one operation in an unusual case.
Signed-off-by: Ben Widawsky <ben@bwidawsk.net>
Reviewed-by: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
Signed-off-by: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>