Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-68782-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:45d1:ec00::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:45d1:ec00::1;
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2024 17:08:37 +0200
From: Andy Shevchenko <andy@kernel.org>
To: Thomas Richard <thomas.richard@bootlin.com>
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>,
	Krzysztof =?utf-8?Q?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
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 02/18] pinctrl: pinctrl-single: remove dead code in
 suspend() and resume() callbacks
Message-ID: <Zc96dSff5Y-dufrJ@smile.fi.intel.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>
 <78add459-a96a-46c6-83ff-e2657d4d3db4@bootlin.com>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <78add459-a96a-46c6-83ff-e2657d4d3db4@bootlin.com>
Organization: Intel Finland Oy - BIC 0357606-4 - Westendinkatu 7, 02160 Espoo

On Fri, Feb 16, 2024 at 08:59:47AM +0100, Thomas Richard wrote:
> 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 ?

Old PM calls obviously can be called in different circumstances and these
checks are important.

Just squash these two patches to avoid additional churn and we are done.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko