RE: [PATCH 5/5] iio: adc: cc10001: Switch remaining IIO calls in probe to devm_ forms.

From: "Sa, Nuno" <Nuno.Sa@analog.com>
To: Jonathan Cameron <jic23@kernel.org>,
	"linux-iio@vger.kernel.org" <linux-iio@vger.kernel.org>
Cc: Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@huawei.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH 5/5] iio: adc: cc10001: Switch remaining IIO calls in probe to devm_ forms.
Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2022 11:17:11 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <SJ0PR03MB6778101A495B0F3C6069E2CD99379@SJ0PR03MB6778.namprd03.prod.outlook.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20221016170950.387751-6-jic23@kernel.org>

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jonathan Cameron <jic23@kernel.org>
> Sent: Sunday, October 16, 2022 7:10 PM
> To: linux-iio@vger.kernel.org
> Cc: Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@huawei.com>
> Subject: [PATCH 5/5] iio: adc: cc10001: Switch remaining IIO calls in probe to
> devm_ forms.
> 
> [External]
> 
> From: Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@huawei.com>
> 
> As everything else is now handled by devm managed releases the
> triggered buffer setup and IIO device registration can also be
> moved over to their devm forms allowing dropping of remove().
> 
> Signed-off-by: Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@huawei.com>
> ---
>  drivers/iio/adc/cc10001_adc.c | 28 +++-------------------------
>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 25 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/iio/adc/cc10001_adc.c b/drivers/iio/adc/cc10001_adc.c
> index b0daaec7ff16..ab71004ea8f1 100644
> --- a/drivers/iio/adc/cc10001_adc.c
> +++ b/drivers/iio/adc/cc10001_adc.c
> @@ -390,33 +390,12 @@ static int cc10001_adc_probe(struct
> platform_device *pdev)
> 
>  	mutex_init(&adc_dev->lock);
> 
> -	ret = iio_triggered_buffer_setup(indio_dev, NULL,
> -					 &cc10001_adc_trigger_h, NULL);
> +	ret = devm_iio_triggered_buffer_setup(dev, indio_dev, NULL,
> +					      &cc10001_adc_trigger_h, NULL);
>  	if (ret < 0)
>  		return ret;
> 
> -	ret = iio_device_register(indio_dev);
> -	if (ret < 0)
> -		goto err_cleanup_buffer;
> -
> -	platform_set_drvdata(pdev, indio_dev);
> -

I wonder if it's obvious to everyone that removing this call as a consequence
of not needing  .remove() is clear enough that it does not deserve a mention
in the commit message?

Note that I don't find it particular important so I will still ack it and leave it
up to you :)

- Nuno Sá