On Mon, Aug 28, 2023 at 2:06 PM Conor Dooley <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Aug 28, 2023 at 01:17:57PM +0300, Andrei Coardos wrote:
> > This function call was found to be unnecessary as there is no equivalent
> > platform_get_drvdata() call to access the private data of the driver. Also,
> > the private data is defined in this driver, so there is no risk of it being
> > accessed outside of this driver file.
>
> I think Greg previously pointed out to you that is it not sufficient to
> check for platform_get_drvdata() alone, because the information could be
> accessed without going through that helper. That's not the case here,
> but it could be true elsewhere.
>
> Acked-by: Conor Dooley <[email protected]>
>
> Thanks,
> Conor.
>
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Andrei Coardos <[email protected]>
> > ---
> > drivers/char/hw_random/mpfs-rng.c | 2 --
> > 1 file changed, 2 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/char/hw_random/mpfs-rng.c b/drivers/char/hw_random/mpfs-rng.c
> > index c6972734ae62..0994024daa70 100644
> > --- a/drivers/char/hw_random/mpfs-rng.c
> > +++ b/drivers/char/hw_random/mpfs-rng.c
> > @@ -79,8 +79,6 @@ static int mpfs_rng_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> > rng_priv->rng.read = mpfs_rng_read;
> > rng_priv->rng.name = pdev->name;
> >
> > - platform_set_drvdata(pdev, rng_priv);
> > -
> > ret = devm_hwrng_register(&pdev->dev, &rng_priv->rng);
A question would be if there is a desire to keep the prints below, or
would this be sufficient?
return devm_hwrng_register(&pdev->dev, &rng_priv->rng);
If there is the desire to keep the prints, then:
Reviewed-by: Alexandru Ardelean <[email protected]>
> > if (ret)
> > return dev_err_probe(&pdev->dev, ret, "Failed to register MPFS hwrng\n");
> > --
> > 2.34.1
> >