2021-08-11 11:57:02

by Tang Bin

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: [PATCH] ASoC: stm32: spdifrx: Delete unnecessary check in the probe function

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 <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Tang Bin <[email protected]>
---
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




2021-08-11 12:00:04

by Mark Brown

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ASoC: stm32: spdifrx: Delete unnecessary check in the probe function

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.


Attachments:
(No filename) (407.00 B)
signature.asc (499.00 B)
Download all attachments

2021-08-11 12:13:23

by Tang Bin

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ASoC: stm32: spdifrx: Delete unnecessary check in theprobe function

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



2021-08-11 12:22:31

by Mark Brown

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ASoC: stm32: spdifrx: Delete unnecessary check in theprobe function

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.


Attachments:
(No filename) (920.00 B)
signature.asc (499.00 B)
Download all attachments

2021-08-11 12:31:01

by Tang Bin

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ASoC: stm32: spdifrx: Delete unnecessary check in the probe function

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