Just a set of ad-hoc cleanups. No functional change intended.
Andy Shevchenko (6):
mfd: kempld: Replace ACPI code with agnostic one
mfd: kempld: Use device core to create driver-specific device
attributes
mfd: kempld: Simplify device registration
mfd: kempld: Use PLATFORM_DEVID_NONE instead of -1
mfd: kempld: Drop duplicate NULL check in ->exit()
mfd: kempld: Remove dead code
drivers/mfd/kempld-core.c | 105 ++++++++++++--------------------------
1 file changed, 33 insertions(+), 72 deletions(-)
--
2.43.0.rc1.1.gbec44491f096
Use the `PLATFORM_DEVID_NONE` constant instead of hard-coding -1
when creating a platform device.
No functional changes are intended.
Signed-off-by: Andy Shevchenko <[email protected]>
---
drivers/mfd/kempld-core.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/mfd/kempld-core.c b/drivers/mfd/kempld-core.c
index e207a62d6577..c3bc61dcd098 100644
--- a/drivers/mfd/kempld-core.c
+++ b/drivers/mfd/kempld-core.c
@@ -109,7 +109,7 @@ static int kempld_register_cells_generic(struct kempld_device_data *pld)
if (pld->feature_mask & KEMPLD_FEATURE_MASK_UART)
devs[i++].name = kempld_dev_names[KEMPLD_UART];
- return mfd_add_devices(pld->dev, -1, devs, i, NULL, 0, NULL);
+ return mfd_add_devices(pld->dev, PLATFORM_DEVID_NONE, devs, i, NULL, 0, NULL);
}
static struct resource kempld_ioresource = {
--
2.43.0.rc1.1.gbec44491f096
On Fri, Feb 23, 2024 at 09:49:49PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> Just a set of ad-hoc cleanups. No functional change intended.
Any comments?
(I assume the 6+ weeks in the mailing list is enough for all kind of CIs
to complain. But they hadn't AFAICS.)
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
On Tue, 02 Apr 2024, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 23, 2024 at 09:49:49PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > Just a set of ad-hoc cleanups. No functional change intended.
>
> Any comments?
>
> (I assume the 6+ weeks in the mailing list is enough for all kind of CIs
> to complain. But they hadn't AFAICS.)
Not sure why these were dropped from my queue.
Likely another Mutt "feature".
Back in the queue.
--
Lee Jones [李琼斯]
On Fri, 23 Feb 2024 21:49:49 +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> Just a set of ad-hoc cleanups. No functional change intended.
>
> Andy Shevchenko (6):
> mfd: kempld: Replace ACPI code with agnostic one
> mfd: kempld: Use device core to create driver-specific device
> attributes
> mfd: kempld: Simplify device registration
> mfd: kempld: Use PLATFORM_DEVID_NONE instead of -1
> mfd: kempld: Drop duplicate NULL check in ->exit()
> mfd: kempld: Remove dead code
>
> [...]
Applied, thanks!
[1/6] mfd: kempld: Replace ACPI code with agnostic one
commit: 2757d27d24b6c92b2476caaceca1e2666b0945be
[2/6] mfd: kempld: Use device core to create driver-specific device attributes
commit: 28a8ad605b6b5819514467da6925b2e5b3f77c3e
[3/6] mfd: kempld: Simplify device registration
commit: 3f3f569bea415066618f9680278f26d341ddf23d
[4/6] mfd: kempld: Use PLATFORM_DEVID_NONE instead of -1
commit: c1a0b1194c5e0a5c2f027578439fdea009275bf9
[5/6] mfd: kempld: Drop duplicate NULL check in ->exit()
commit: bb42768bd22196976acb217d1748b37ea55f8f3a
[6/6] mfd: kempld: Remove dead code
commit: b89163d2e1235677f766895b596b3cd7447b69a3
--
Lee Jones [李琼斯]
On Thu, Apr 11, 2024 at 10:29:28AM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
> On Tue, 02 Apr 2024, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 23, 2024 at 09:49:49PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > Just a set of ad-hoc cleanups. No functional change intended.
> >
> > Any comments?
> >
> > (I assume the 6+ weeks in the mailing list is enough for all kind of CIs
> > to complain. But they hadn't AFAICS.)
>
> Not sure why these were dropped from my queue.
>
> Likely another Mutt "feature".
Hmm... Using mutt as well, but probably not in advanced way.
> Back in the queue.
Thanks!
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
On Thu, 11 Apr 2024, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 11, 2024 at 10:29:28AM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
> > On Tue, 02 Apr 2024, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > On Fri, Feb 23, 2024 at 09:49:49PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > > Just a set of ad-hoc cleanups. No functional change intended.
> > >
> > > Any comments?
> > >
> > > (I assume the 6+ weeks in the mailing list is enough for all kind of CIs
> > > to complain. But they hadn't AFAICS.)
> >
> > Not sure why these were dropped from my queue.
> >
> > Likely another Mutt "feature".
>
> Hmm... Using mutt as well, but probably not in advanced way.
I use:
I flag-message toggle a message's 'important' flag
.. to mark messages as requiring review.
Sometimes Mutt drops them for seemingly no reason. It's also not
uncommon for me to fetch new mail or open Mutt to find 300 unread mails
which I've already parsed. When that happens, all of the mails that
I've previously flagged have also been (not so) helpfully unflagged!
It's just something that I've grown accustomed to.
--
Lee Jones [李琼斯]
On Thu, Apr 11, 2024 at 11:56:07AM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Apr 2024, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 11, 2024 at 10:29:28AM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
> > > On Tue, 02 Apr 2024, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Feb 23, 2024 at 09:49:49PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > > > Just a set of ad-hoc cleanups. No functional change intended.
> > > >
> > > > Any comments?
> > > >
> > > > (I assume the 6+ weeks in the mailing list is enough for all kind of CIs
> > > > to complain. But they hadn't AFAICS.)
> > >
> > > Not sure why these were dropped from my queue.
> > >
> > > Likely another Mutt "feature".
> >
> > Hmm... Using mutt as well, but probably not in advanced way.
>
> I use:
>
> I flag-message toggle a message's 'important' flag
>
> ... to mark messages as requiring review.
I don't (yet?).
> Sometimes Mutt drops them for seemingly no reason. It's also not
> uncommon for me to fetch new mail or open Mutt to find 300 unread mails
> which I've already parsed. When that happens, all of the mails that
> I've previously flagged have also been (not so) helpfully unflagged!
>
> It's just something that I've grown accustomed to.
Okay, thanks for sharing your experience.
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko