Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-68203-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.199.223 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.199.223;
Message-ID: <78add459-a96a-46c6-83ff-e2657d4d3db4@bootlin.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2024 08:59:47 +0100
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 02/18] pinctrl: pinctrl-single: remove dead code in
 suspend() and resume() callbacks
To: Andy Shevchenko <andy@kernel.org>
Cc: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>,
 Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@bgdev.pl>, Tony Lindgren <tony@atomide.com>,
 Haojian Zhuang <haojian.zhuang@linaro.org>, Vignesh R <vigneshr@ti.com>,
 Aaro Koskinen <aaro.koskinen@iki.fi>,
 Janusz Krzysztofik <jmkrzyszt@gmail.com>, Andi Shyti
 <andi.shyti@kernel.org>, Peter Rosin <peda@axentia.se>,
 Vinod Koul <vkoul@kernel.org>, Kishon Vijay Abraham I <kishon@kernel.org>,
 Philipp Zabel <p.zabel@pengutronix.de>,
 Lorenzo Pieralisi <lpieralisi@kernel.org>,
 =?UTF-8?Q?Krzysztof_Wilczy=C5=84ski?= <kw@linux.com>,
 Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>, Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@google.com>,
 linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
 linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-omap@vger.kernel.org,
 linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org, linux-phy@lists.infradead.org,
 linux-pci@vger.kernel.org, gregory.clement@bootlin.com,
 theo.lebrun@bootlin.com, thomas.petazzoni@bootlin.com, u-kumar1@ti.com
References: <20240102-j7200-pcie-s2r-v3-0-5c2e4a3fac1f@bootlin.com>
 <20240102-j7200-pcie-s2r-v3-2-5c2e4a3fac1f@bootlin.com>
 <Zc4tedAhqYX3bQcw@smile.fi.intel.com>
Content-Language: en-US
From: Thomas Richard <thomas.richard@bootlin.com>
In-Reply-To: <Zc4tedAhqYX3bQcw@smile.fi.intel.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On 2/15/24 16:27, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 15, 2024 at 04:17:47PM +0100, Thomas Richard wrote:
>> No need to check the pointer returned by platform_get_drvdata(), as
>> platform_set_drvdata() is called during the probe.
> 
> This patch should go _after_ the next one, otherwise the commit message doesn't
> tell full story and the code change bring a potential regression.
> 

Hello Andy,

I'm ok to move this patch after the next one.
But for my understanding, could you explain me why changing the order is
important in this case ?

Regards,

-- 
Thomas Richard, Bootlin
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
https://bootlin.com