Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Subject: Re: [PATCH] memory: atmel-sdramc: check of_device_get_match_data()
 return value
To:     Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@bootlin.com>
Cc:     Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@microchip.com>,
        Ludovic Desroches <ludovic.desroches@microchip.com>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
References: <20210407154447.70540-1-krzysztof.kozlowski@canonical.com>
 <YG3boJNqAoNCBeIB@piout.net>
From:   Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@canonical.com>
Message-ID: <57470934-d2db-a360-8347-4debe5830f7b@canonical.com>
Date:   Wed, 7 Apr 2021 18:55:27 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/78.7.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <YG3boJNqAoNCBeIB@piout.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 07/04/2021 18:19, Alexandre Belloni wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On 07/04/2021 17:44:47+0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> If the driver is probed, the of_device_get_match_data() should not
>> return NULL, however for sanity check its return value.
>>
> 
> As you say, there is no way this will ever be the case, I don't see the
> point of checking the return value, this adds 12 bytes for nothing...
> 
> Maybe coverity should be fixed as there are many drivers making the same
> (true) assumption and I don't think this is worth the churn.

There are also several drivers having this check. To me an explicit NULL
check is better and more readable than non-obvious assumption that the
of_device_id table contains data for each entry and there is no other
bind method (like for OF+I2C drivers). Even if the case is not real,
this is nice, simple and explicit code.

Best regards,
Krzysztof