Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7EFC0C433FE for ; Thu, 6 Jan 2022 12:16:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S238570AbiAFMQL (ORCPT ); Thu, 6 Jan 2022 07:16:11 -0500 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:55072 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S238347AbiAFMQK (ORCPT ); Thu, 6 Jan 2022 07:16:10 -0500 Received: from mail-pj1-x1034.google.com (mail-pj1-x1034.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::1034]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5290CC061245 for ; Thu, 6 Jan 2022 04:16:10 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-pj1-x1034.google.com with SMTP id c9-20020a17090a1d0900b001b2b54bd6c5so8277266pjd.1 for ; Thu, 06 Jan 2022 04:16:10 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=ezhOL9IQmLkdhn7bT2hYUZscONiXzj3Zulc4AqaqV74=; b=VWuYcofoSfJWAV4N8jaIG1D93UCOzzLF4pnjMZckQdHuwfgaz+x204qWdN4QF4YoRD jjXdv6nQCa0cdQvhgmsH706TQG5JQqC2UipfolVHtapLb6VJ6mjx3mvAMAvJ9Ooi5nB6 CRsCNuUmRVJtehrSnmYuebPoAmJSgHGuYmCNi47cAYBd27WmmUPIrHfBja4EQVUVAYvE xHEMWdoc093Hihp5ksbATTC/pSlSafiFyvDCnDXh1YrfV/2OCzLMdP60JaQ0C2aNaVkj tim9w33+IK49XDuWb+ftGMo9xZMAsOF+xNjlHqYS+VRwvF0me3YYKY1Vt79vdnY/4VeR RXUg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=ezhOL9IQmLkdhn7bT2hYUZscONiXzj3Zulc4AqaqV74=; b=Culg7lFyMKDcs8HuFmsqvCSAlrFMKxrfPrWzWgKwmM+rv6F1KlAzESfzhEncBrV6Dk PQ4bPiciWc8pdxyyOZeYJ44KXHpaL5b8DFyRXg5eBlHEF75MhbOucu374w/MKbWybmiv 9XCzvoy4Aho5p0O/SPTyR6Xk0PG28EXNzmqAAlrJh+21LUu73wZ+lDgrizG7slep0ipe 6FXzhQmkT9Jcw7zjnjQOcnkExlC9VfY5JpVo9rcPwbDdr5zsoN5L+O68XmtIectWfvwh QaIlOCUqd61wkM9dWmIFtxGZTs5huqZkRkBpwwF81ud0dTrjP2syOoz3WiRJ82K5ZknE GacA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531JHOyjCDm9+5oWr/Hrx4863R4WAZr1u1WN2A5jUZYJUGJI2PU5 QuwE+AhK0m08oTcvyLSOz6s= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzV2qd7Kyc2ZIOHuzuuD3AFWMO67x7jgDMNj2Z9+hCizMBZuXOekzZfGXgf9RDEl+VUGs7ztA== X-Received: by 2002:a17:90b:4f4a:: with SMTP id pj10mr9731709pjb.112.1641471369839; Thu, 06 Jan 2022 04:16:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from 8345e2a12d0c ([159.226.95.43]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id b5sm2401828pfm.155.2022.01.06.04.16.07 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305 bits=256/256); Thu, 06 Jan 2022 04:16:09 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2022 12:16:05 +0000 From: Miaoqian Lin To: Chun-Kuang Hu Cc: Philipp Zabel , Chunfeng Yun , Kishon Vijay Abraham I , Vinod Koul , Matthias Brugger , DRI Development , "moderated list:ARM/Mediatek SoC support" , Linux ARM , linux-phy@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel Subject: Re: [PATCH] phy: mediatek: Fix missing check in mtk_mipi_tx_probe Message-ID: <20220106121524.GA25165@8345e2a12d0c> References: <20211224082103.7658-1-linmq006@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28) Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi, Chun-Kuang: On Fri, Dec 31, 2021 at 12:31:33AM +0800, Chun-Kuang Hu wrote: > > diff --git a/drivers/phy/mediatek/phy-mtk-mipi-dsi.c b/drivers/phy/mediatek/phy-mtk-mipi-dsi.c > > index 28ad9403c441..67b005d5b9e3 100644 > > --- a/drivers/phy/mediatek/phy-mtk-mipi-dsi.c > > +++ b/drivers/phy/mediatek/phy-mtk-mipi-dsi.c > > @@ -146,6 +146,8 @@ static int mtk_mipi_tx_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) > > return -ENOMEM; > > > > mipi_tx->driver_data = of_device_get_match_data(dev); > > + if (!mipi_tx->driver_data) > > I'm confused. mtk_mipi_tx_probe() is called because this device node's > compatible match one in mtk_mipi_tx_match[]. So I think the return > value of of_device_get_match_data(dev) would not be NULL. If this is > true, this checking is redundant. > I think your are right, this checking is redundant. Thanks for your reply. Regards, Miaoqian.