Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20230807130217.17853-1-aboutphysycs@gmail.com> <c867e685-7665-420b-9478-bce6eb067463@sirena.org.uk>
In-Reply-To: <c867e685-7665-420b-9478-bce6eb067463@sirena.org.uk>
From:   Alexandru Ardelean <alex@shruggie.ro>
Date:   Mon, 7 Aug 2023 20:38:27 +0300
Message-ID: <CAH3L5Qrzk-7WoF8+GKMYS40Dj_fxGpiLrTvVB_PJdA_VZVsDAQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] spi: gxp: removed unneeded call to platform_set_drvdata()
To:     Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
Cc:     Andrei Coardos <aboutphysycs@gmail.com>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-spi@vger.kernel.org,
        nick.hawkins@hpe.com, verdun@hpe.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Aug 7, 2023 at 4:27=E2=80=AFPM Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org> wrot=
e:
>
> On Mon, Aug 07, 2023 at 04:02:17PM +0300, Andrei Coardos wrote:
>
> > This function call was found to be unnecessary as there is no equivalen=
t
> > platform_get_drvdata() call to access the private data of the driver. A=
lso,
> > the private data is defined in this driver, so there is no risk of it b=
eing
> > accessed outside of this driver file.
>
> That isn't enough of a check here - people can still reference the
> driver data without going through the accessor function.

So, is that like calling `platform_get_drvdata()` in a parent/chid
device, to check if the driver-data is set?
Would it make sense for another driver to do that (i.e. check the
driver-data is non-null, but not access the data)?
I can imagine that being possible, but it's a bit quirky.

Or, is the issue with the wording of the comment?