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.
Reviewed-by: Alexandru Ardelean <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Andrei Coardos <[email protected]>
---
drivers/gpio/gpio-msc313.c | 2 --
1 file changed, 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpio/gpio-msc313.c b/drivers/gpio/gpio-msc313.c
index 036ad2324892..8e6835399d24 100644
--- a/drivers/gpio/gpio-msc313.c
+++ b/drivers/gpio/gpio-msc313.c
@@ -643,8 +643,6 @@ static int msc313_gpio_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
if (IS_ERR(gpio->base))
return PTR_ERR(gpio->base);
- platform_set_drvdata(pdev, gpio);
-
gpiochip = devm_kzalloc(dev, sizeof(*gpiochip), GFP_KERNEL);
if (!gpiochip)
return -ENOMEM;
--
2.34.1
On Fri, Jul 21, 2023 at 04:11:57PM +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.
Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko <[email protected]>
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
On Fri, Jul 21, 2023 at 07:14:31PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 21, 2023 at 04:11:57PM +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.
Not true.
> > Also, the private data is defined in this driver, so there is no risk of
> > it being accessed outside of this driver file.
>
> Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko <[email protected]>
I have to withdraw this, the patch is wrong.
NAK.
Sorry for the confusion (I have looked for the wrong pattern).
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
Hi,
The private data is "struct msc313_gpio *gpio". This private data is
"binded" to the gpio_chip via devm_gpiochip_add_data, right ?
Then it is retrieved via gpiochip_get_data(chip), right ?
Romain
Le mar. 25 juil. 2023 à 15:22, Andy Shevchenko <[email protected]> a écrit :
>
> On Fri, Jul 21, 2023 at 07:14:31PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 21, 2023 at 04:11:57PM +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.
>
> Not true.
>
> > > Also, the private data is defined in this driver, so there is no risk of
> > > it being accessed outside of this driver file.
> >
> > Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko <[email protected]>
>
> I have to withdraw this, the patch is wrong.
> NAK.
>
> Sorry for the confusion (I have looked for the wrong pattern).
>
> --
> With Best Regards,
> Andy Shevchenko
>
>
On Thu, Jul 27, 2023 at 09:00:36AM +0200, Romain Perier wrote:
First of all, please do not top-post!
> The private data is "struct msc313_gpio *gpio". This private data is
> "binded" to the gpio_chip via devm_gpiochip_add_data, right ?
No.
> Then it is retrieved via gpiochip_get_data(chip), right ?
No.
The driver data is used in PM callbacks. See below.
> Le mar. 25 juil. 2023 ? 15:22, Andy Shevchenko <[email protected]> a ?crit :
> >
> > On Fri, Jul 21, 2023 at 07:14:31PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jul 21, 2023 at 04:11:57PM +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.
> >
> > Not true.
^^^^
> > > > Also, the private data is defined in this driver, so there is no risk of
> > > > it being accessed outside of this driver file.
> > >
> > > Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko <[email protected]>
> >
> > I have to withdraw this, the patch is wrong.
> > NAK.
> >
> > Sorry for the confusion (I have looked for the wrong pattern).
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko