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] ASoC: stm32: spdifrx: Delete unnecessary check in
 theprobe function
To:     Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
Cc:     olivier.moysan@foss.st.com, arnaud.pouliquen@foss.st.com,
        lgirdwood@gmail.com, perex@perex.cz, tiwai@suse.com,
        linux-stm32@st-md-mailman.stormreply.com,
        linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Zhang Shengju <zhangshengju@cmss.chinamobile.com>
References: <20210811115523.17232-1-tangbin@cmss.chinamobile.com>
 <20210811115846.GC4167@sirena.org.uk>
From:   tangbin <tangbin@cmss.chinamobile.com>
Message-ID: <7ddb13ee-2ca6-bf8d-2a83-9896d29176c5@cmss.chinamobile.com>
Date:   Wed, 11 Aug 2021 20:09:00 +0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/68.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20210811115846.GC4167@sirena.org.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Language: en-US
Precedence: bulk

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