* [PATCH] ASoC: stm32: spdifrx: Delete unnecessary check in the probe function
@ 2021-08-11 11:55 ` Tang Bin
0 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: Tang Bin @ 2021-08-11 11:55 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: broonie, olivier.moysan, arnaud.pouliquen, lgirdwood, perex, tiwai
Cc: linux-stm32, linux-arm-kernel, linux-kernel, Tang Bin, Zhang Shengju
The function stm32_spdifrx_parse_of() is only called by the function
stm32_spdifrx_probe(), and the probe function is only called with
an openfirmware platform device. Therefore there is no need to check
the device_node in probe function.
Signed-off-by: Zhang Shengju <zhangshengju@cmss.chinamobile.com>
Signed-off-by: Tang Bin <tangbin@cmss.chinamobile.com>
---
sound/soc/stm/stm32_spdifrx.c | 4 ----
1 file changed, 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/sound/soc/stm/stm32_spdifrx.c b/sound/soc/stm/stm32_spdifrx.c
index 48145f553..8fe822903 100644
--- a/sound/soc/stm/stm32_spdifrx.c
+++ b/sound/soc/stm/stm32_spdifrx.c
@@ -908,13 +908,9 @@ static const struct of_device_id stm32_spdifrx_ids[] = {
static int stm32_spdifrx_parse_of(struct platform_device *pdev,
struct stm32_spdifrx_data *spdifrx)
{
- struct device_node *np = pdev->dev.of_node;
const struct of_device_id *of_id;
struct resource *res;
- if (!np)
- return -ENODEV;
-
of_id = of_match_device(stm32_spdifrx_ids, &pdev->dev);
if (of_id)
spdifrx->regmap_conf =
--
2.20.1.windows.1
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* [PATCH] ASoC: stm32: spdifrx: Delete unnecessary check in the probe function
@ 2021-08-11 11:55 ` Tang Bin
0 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: Tang Bin @ 2021-08-11 11:55 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: broonie, olivier.moysan, arnaud.pouliquen, lgirdwood, perex, tiwai
Cc: linux-stm32, linux-arm-kernel, linux-kernel, Tang Bin, Zhang Shengju
The function stm32_spdifrx_parse_of() is only called by the function
stm32_spdifrx_probe(), and the probe function is only called with
an openfirmware platform device. Therefore there is no need to check
the device_node in probe function.
Signed-off-by: Zhang Shengju <zhangshengju@cmss.chinamobile.com>
Signed-off-by: Tang Bin <tangbin@cmss.chinamobile.com>
---
sound/soc/stm/stm32_spdifrx.c | 4 ----
1 file changed, 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/sound/soc/stm/stm32_spdifrx.c b/sound/soc/stm/stm32_spdifrx.c
index 48145f553..8fe822903 100644
--- a/sound/soc/stm/stm32_spdifrx.c
+++ b/sound/soc/stm/stm32_spdifrx.c
@@ -908,13 +908,9 @@ static const struct of_device_id stm32_spdifrx_ids[] = {
static int stm32_spdifrx_parse_of(struct platform_device *pdev,
struct stm32_spdifrx_data *spdifrx)
{
- struct device_node *np = pdev->dev.of_node;
const struct of_device_id *of_id;
struct resource *res;
- if (!np)
- return -ENODEV;
-
of_id = of_match_device(stm32_spdifrx_ids, &pdev->dev);
if (of_id)
spdifrx->regmap_conf =
--
2.20.1.windows.1
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] ASoC: stm32: spdifrx: Delete unnecessary check in the probe function
2021-08-11 11:55 ` Tang Bin
@ 2021-08-11 11:58 ` Mark Brown
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: Mark Brown @ 2021-08-11 11:58 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Tang Bin
Cc: olivier.moysan, arnaud.pouliquen, lgirdwood, perex, tiwai,
linux-stm32, linux-arm-kernel, linux-kernel, Zhang Shengju
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 399 bytes --]
On Wed, Aug 11, 2021 at 07:55:23PM +0800, Tang Bin wrote:
> The function stm32_spdifrx_parse_of() is only called by the function
> stm32_spdifrx_probe(), and the probe function is only called with
> an openfirmware platform device. Therefore there is no need to check
> the device_node in probe function.
What is the benefit of not doing the check? It seems like reasonable
defensive programming.
[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] ASoC: stm32: spdifrx: Delete unnecessary check in the probe function
@ 2021-08-11 11:58 ` Mark Brown
0 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: Mark Brown @ 2021-08-11 11:58 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Tang Bin
Cc: olivier.moysan, arnaud.pouliquen, lgirdwood, perex, tiwai,
linux-stm32, linux-arm-kernel, linux-kernel, Zhang Shengju
[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 399 bytes --]
On Wed, Aug 11, 2021 at 07:55:23PM +0800, Tang Bin wrote:
> The function stm32_spdifrx_parse_of() is only called by the function
> stm32_spdifrx_probe(), and the probe function is only called with
> an openfirmware platform device. Therefore there is no need to check
> the device_node in probe function.
What is the benefit of not doing the check? It seems like reasonable
defensive programming.
[-- Attachment #1.2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 176 bytes --]
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] ASoC: stm32: spdifrx: Delete unnecessary check in theprobe function
2021-08-11 11:58 ` Mark Brown
@ 2021-08-11 12:09 ` tangbin
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: tangbin @ 2021-08-11 12:09 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Mark Brown
Cc: olivier.moysan, arnaud.pouliquen, lgirdwood, perex, tiwai,
linux-stm32, linux-arm-kernel, linux-kernel, Zhang Shengju
Hi Mark:
On 2021/8/11 19:58, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 11, 2021 at 07:55:23PM +0800, Tang Bin wrote:
>> The function stm32_spdifrx_parse_of() is only called by the function
>> stm32_spdifrx_probe(), and the probe function is only called with
>> an openfirmware platform device. Therefore there is no need to check
>> the device_node in probe function.
> What is the benefit of not doing the check? It seems like reasonable
> defensive programming.
I think it's unnecessary, because we all know than the probe function is
only trigger if
the device and the driver matches, and the trigger mode is just Device
Tree. So the device_node
must be exist in the probe function if it works. That's the reason why I
think it's redundant.
Thanks
Tang Bin
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] ASoC: stm32: spdifrx: Delete unnecessary check in theprobe function
@ 2021-08-11 12:09 ` tangbin
0 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: tangbin @ 2021-08-11 12:09 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Mark Brown
Cc: olivier.moysan, arnaud.pouliquen, lgirdwood, perex, tiwai,
linux-stm32, linux-arm-kernel, linux-kernel, Zhang Shengju
Hi Mark:
On 2021/8/11 19:58, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 11, 2021 at 07:55:23PM +0800, Tang Bin wrote:
>> The function stm32_spdifrx_parse_of() is only called by the function
>> stm32_spdifrx_probe(), and the probe function is only called with
>> an openfirmware platform device. Therefore there is no need to check
>> the device_node in probe function.
> What is the benefit of not doing the check? It seems like reasonable
> defensive programming.
I think it's unnecessary, because we all know than the probe function is
only trigger if
the device and the driver matches, and the trigger mode is just Device
Tree. So the device_node
must be exist in the probe function if it works. That's the reason why I
think it's redundant.
Thanks
Tang Bin
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] ASoC: stm32: spdifrx: Delete unnecessary check in theprobe function
2021-08-11 12:09 ` tangbin
@ 2021-08-11 12:19 ` Mark Brown
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: Mark Brown @ 2021-08-11 12:19 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: tangbin
Cc: olivier.moysan, arnaud.pouliquen, lgirdwood, perex, tiwai,
linux-stm32, linux-arm-kernel, linux-kernel, Zhang Shengju
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 897 bytes --]
On Wed, Aug 11, 2021 at 08:09:00PM +0800, tangbin wrote:
> On 2021/8/11 19:58, Mark Brown wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 11, 2021 at 07:55:23PM +0800, Tang Bin wrote:
> > > The function stm32_spdifrx_parse_of() is only called by the function
> > > stm32_spdifrx_probe(), and the probe function is only called with
> > > an openfirmware platform device. Therefore there is no need to check
> > > the device_node in probe function.
> > What is the benefit of not doing the check? It seems like reasonable
> > defensive programming.
> I think it's unnecessary, because we all know than the probe function is
> only trigger if
> the device and the driver matches, and the trigger mode is just Device Tree.
> So the device_node
> must be exist in the probe function if it works. That's the reason why I
> think it's redundant.
I see why it is redundant, I don't see what problem this redudnancy
causes.
[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] ASoC: stm32: spdifrx: Delete unnecessary check in theprobe function
@ 2021-08-11 12:19 ` Mark Brown
0 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: Mark Brown @ 2021-08-11 12:19 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: tangbin
Cc: olivier.moysan, arnaud.pouliquen, lgirdwood, perex, tiwai,
linux-stm32, linux-arm-kernel, linux-kernel, Zhang Shengju
[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 897 bytes --]
On Wed, Aug 11, 2021 at 08:09:00PM +0800, tangbin wrote:
> On 2021/8/11 19:58, Mark Brown wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 11, 2021 at 07:55:23PM +0800, Tang Bin wrote:
> > > The function stm32_spdifrx_parse_of() is only called by the function
> > > stm32_spdifrx_probe(), and the probe function is only called with
> > > an openfirmware platform device. Therefore there is no need to check
> > > the device_node in probe function.
> > What is the benefit of not doing the check? It seems like reasonable
> > defensive programming.
> I think it's unnecessary, because we all know than the probe function is
> only trigger if
> the device and the driver matches, and the trigger mode is just Device Tree.
> So the device_node
> must be exist in the probe function if it works. That's the reason why I
> think it's redundant.
I see why it is redundant, I don't see what problem this redudnancy
causes.
[-- Attachment #1.2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 176 bytes --]
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] ASoC: stm32: spdifrx: Delete unnecessary check in the probe function
2021-08-11 12:19 ` Mark Brown
@ 2021-08-11 12:28 ` tangbin
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: tangbin @ 2021-08-11 12:28 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Mark Brown
Cc: olivier.moysan, arnaud.pouliquen, lgirdwood, perex, tiwai,
linux-stm32, linux-arm-kernel, linux-kernel
Hi Mark:
On 2021/8/11 20:19, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 11, 2021 at 08:09:00PM +0800, tangbin wrote:
>> On 2021/8/11 19:58, Mark Brown wrote:
>>> On Wed, Aug 11, 2021 at 07:55:23PM +0800, Tang Bin wrote:
>>>> The function stm32_spdifrx_parse_of() is only called by the function
>>>> stm32_spdifrx_probe(), and the probe function is only called with
>>>> an openfirmware platform device. Therefore there is no need to check
>>>> the device_node in probe function.
>>> What is the benefit of not doing the check? It seems like reasonable
>>> defensive programming.
>> I think it's unnecessary, because we all know than the probe function is
>> only trigger if
>> the device and the driver matches, and the trigger mode is just Device Tree.
>> So the device_node
>> must be exist in the probe function if it works. That's the reason why I
>> think it's redundant.
> I see why it is redundant, I don't see what problem this redudnancy
> causes.
Maybe not, just be redundant. If you think that's ok, just drop this patch.
I'm sorry to trouble you.
Thanks
Tang Bin
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] ASoC: stm32: spdifrx: Delete unnecessary check in the probe function
@ 2021-08-11 12:28 ` tangbin
0 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: tangbin @ 2021-08-11 12:28 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Mark Brown
Cc: olivier.moysan, arnaud.pouliquen, lgirdwood, perex, tiwai,
linux-stm32, linux-arm-kernel, linux-kernel
Hi Mark:
On 2021/8/11 20:19, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 11, 2021 at 08:09:00PM +0800, tangbin wrote:
>> On 2021/8/11 19:58, Mark Brown wrote:
>>> On Wed, Aug 11, 2021 at 07:55:23PM +0800, Tang Bin wrote:
>>>> The function stm32_spdifrx_parse_of() is only called by the function
>>>> stm32_spdifrx_probe(), and the probe function is only called with
>>>> an openfirmware platform device. Therefore there is no need to check
>>>> the device_node in probe function.
>>> What is the benefit of not doing the check? It seems like reasonable
>>> defensive programming.
>> I think it's unnecessary, because we all know than the probe function is
>> only trigger if
>> the device and the driver matches, and the trigger mode is just Device Tree.
>> So the device_node
>> must be exist in the probe function if it works. That's the reason why I
>> think it's redundant.
> I see why it is redundant, I don't see what problem this redudnancy
> causes.
Maybe not, just be redundant. If you think that's ok, just drop this patch.
I'm sorry to trouble you.
Thanks
Tang Bin
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2021-08-11 12:41 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2021-08-11 11:55 [PATCH] ASoC: stm32: spdifrx: Delete unnecessary check in the probe function Tang Bin
2021-08-11 11:55 ` Tang Bin
2021-08-11 11:58 ` Mark Brown
2021-08-11 11:58 ` Mark Brown
2021-08-11 12:09 ` [PATCH] ASoC: stm32: spdifrx: Delete unnecessary check in theprobe function tangbin
2021-08-11 12:09 ` tangbin
2021-08-11 12:19 ` Mark Brown
2021-08-11 12:19 ` Mark Brown
2021-08-11 12:28 ` [PATCH] ASoC: stm32: spdifrx: Delete unnecessary check in the probe function tangbin
2021-08-11 12:28 ` tangbin
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.