2021-05-15 17:55:35

by Alexandru Ardelean

Subject: [PATCH] gpio: gpio-tps65218: remove platform_set_drvdata() + cleanup probe

The platform_set_drvdata() call is only useful if we need to retrieve back
the private information.
Since the driver doesn't do that, it's not useful to have it.

If this is removed, we can also just do a direct return on
devm_gpiochip_add_data(). We don't need to print that this call failed as
there are other ways to log/see this during probe.

Signed-off-by: Alexandru Ardelean <[email protected]>
---
drivers/gpio/gpio-tps65218.c | 12 +-----------
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 11 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/gpio/gpio-tps65218.c b/drivers/gpio/gpio-tps65218.c
index 43a1150055ce..66461ed192d7 100644
--- a/drivers/gpio/gpio-tps65218.c
+++ b/drivers/gpio/gpio-tps65218.c
@@ -187,7 +187,6 @@ static int tps65218_gpio_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
{
struct tps65218 *tps65218 = dev_get_drvdata(pdev->dev.parent);
struct tps65218_gpio *tps65218_gpio;
- int ret;

tps65218_gpio = devm_kzalloc(&pdev->dev, sizeof(*tps65218_gpio),
GFP_KERNEL);
@@ -201,16 +200,7 @@ static int tps65218_gpio_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
tps65218_gpio->gpio_chip.of_node = pdev->dev.of_node;
#endif

- ret = devm_gpiochip_add_data(&pdev->dev, &tps65218_gpio->gpio_chip,
- tps65218_gpio);
- if (ret < 0) {
- dev_err(&pdev->dev, "Failed to register gpiochip, %d\n", ret);
- return ret;
- }
-
- platform_set_drvdata(pdev, tps65218_gpio);
-
- return ret;
+ return devm_gpiochip_add_data(&pdev->dev, &tps65218_gpio->gpio_chip, tps65218_gpio);
}

static const struct of_device_id tps65218_dt_match[] = {
--
2.31.1

2021-05-24 19:02:20

by Bartosz Golaszewski

Subject: Re: [PATCH] gpio: gpio-tps65218: remove platform_set_drvdata() + cleanup probe

On Sat, May 15, 2021 at 9:55 AM Alexandru Ardelean
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
> The platform_set_drvdata() call is only useful if we need to retrieve back
> the private information.
> Since the driver doesn't do that, it's not useful to have it.
>
> If this is removed, we can also just do a direct return on
> devm_gpiochip_add_data(). We don't need to print that this call failed as
> there are other ways to log/see this during probe.
>
> Signed-off-by: Alexandru Ardelean <[email protected]>
> ---
> drivers/gpio/gpio-tps65218.c | 12 +-----------
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 11 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpio/gpio-tps65218.c b/drivers/gpio/gpio-tps65218.c
> index 43a1150055ce..66461ed192d7 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpio/gpio-tps65218.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpio/gpio-tps65218.c
> @@ -187,7 +187,6 @@ static int tps65218_gpio_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> {
> struct tps65218 *tps65218 = dev_get_drvdata(pdev->dev.parent);
> struct tps65218_gpio *tps65218_gpio;
> - int ret;
>
> tps65218_gpio = devm_kzalloc(&pdev->dev, sizeof(*tps65218_gpio),
> GFP_KERNEL);
> @@ -201,16 +200,7 @@ static int tps65218_gpio_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> tps65218_gpio->gpio_chip.of_node = pdev->dev.of_node;
> #endif
>
> - ret = devm_gpiochip_add_data(&pdev->dev, &tps65218_gpio->gpio_chip,
> - tps65218_gpio);
> - if (ret < 0) {
> - dev_err(&pdev->dev, "Failed to register gpiochip, %d\n", ret);
> - return ret;
> - }
> -
> - platform_set_drvdata(pdev, tps65218_gpio);
> -
> - return ret;
> + return devm_gpiochip_add_data(&pdev->dev, &tps65218_gpio->gpio_chip, tps65218_gpio);
> }
>
> static const struct of_device_id tps65218_dt_match[] = {
> --
> 2.31.1
>

Applied, thanks!

Bart