| Message ID | 20230809154211.15741-1-aboutphysycs@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| State | Handled Elsewhere |
| Headers | show |
| Series | staging: nvec: paz00: remove unneeded call to platform_set_drvdata() | expand |
On Wed, Aug 09, 2023 at 06:42:11PM +0300, Andrei Coardos wrote: > This function call was found to be unnecessary as there is no equivalent > platform_get_drvdata() call to access the private data of the driver. Also, > the private data is defined in this driver, so there is no risk of it being > accessed outside of this driver file. > > Signed-off-by: Andrei Coardos <aboutphysycs@gmail.com> > --- I think you are right, but why are we doing this? That one line is hardly a huge eyesore. It's all risk and no reward. Have you tested this change on real hardware? regards, dan carpenter
Hi, On Thu, 10 Aug 2023, Dan Carpenter wrote: > On Wed, Aug 09, 2023 at 06:42:11PM +0300, Andrei Coardos wrote: >> This function call was found to be unnecessary as there is no equivalent >> platform_get_drvdata() call to access the private data of the driver. Also, >> the private data is defined in this driver, so there is no risk of it being >> accessed outside of this driver file. >> >> Signed-off-by: Andrei Coardos <aboutphysycs@gmail.com> >> --- > > I think you are right, but why are we doing this? That one line is > hardly a huge eyesore. It's all risk and no reward. I guess this was placed in order to implement a module unload function, but this was never done. The driver also seems to have found another method to get its private data, so this can be safely removed. > Have you tested this change on real hardware? I just checked that it compiles and works on my AC100. Thanks! Marc
On Wed, Aug 09, 2023 at 06:42:11PM +0300, Andrei Coardos wrote: > This function call was found to be unnecessary as there is no equivalent > platform_get_drvdata() call to access the private data of the driver. Also, > the private data is defined in this driver, so there is no risk of it being > accessed outside of this driver file. > > Signed-off-by: Andrei Coardos <aboutphysycs@gmail.com> > --- > drivers/staging/nvec/nvec_paz00.c | 2 -- > 1 file changed, 2 deletions(-) Seems fine, and if Marc has tested it, that's good enough for me: Acked-by: Thierry Reding <treding@nvidia.com>
diff --git a/drivers/staging/nvec/nvec_paz00.c b/drivers/staging/nvec/nvec_paz00.c index 55d59840fca4..9c01c51f0ab5 100644 --- a/drivers/staging/nvec/nvec_paz00.c +++ b/drivers/staging/nvec/nvec_paz00.c @@ -53,8 +53,6 @@ static int nvec_paz00_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) led->cdev.flags |= LED_CORE_SUSPENDRESUME; led->nvec = nvec; - platform_set_drvdata(pdev, led); - ret = devm_led_classdev_register(&pdev->dev, &led->cdev); if (ret < 0) return ret;
This function call was found to be unnecessary as there is no equivalent platform_get_drvdata() call to access the private data of the driver. Also, the private data is defined in this driver, so there is no risk of it being accessed outside of this driver file. Signed-off-by: Andrei Coardos <aboutphysycs@gmail.com> --- drivers/staging/nvec/nvec_paz00.c | 2 -- 1 file changed, 2 deletions(-)