[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <05e553c2-202b-0b4b-8b88-60e330c80fa3@xilinx.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2018 16:19:46 +0200
From: Michal Simek <michal.simek@...inx.com>
To: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Michal Simek <monstr@...str.eu>
CC: Michal Simek <michal.simek@...inx.com>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <gnomes@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
Alexander Graf <agraf@...e.de>, <shubhraj@...inx.com>,
<robh@...nel.org>, Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.com>,
<linux-serial@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 1/6] serial: uartps: Do not initialize field to
zero again
On 27.6.2018 12:09, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 10:09:05AM +0200, Michal Simek wrote:
>> On 6.6.2018 14:41, Michal Simek wrote:
>>> Writing zero and NULLs to already initialized fields is not needed.
>>> Remove this additional writes.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Michal Simek <michal.simek@...inx.com>
>>> ---
>>>
>>> Changes in v2:
>>> - new patch - it can be sent separately too
>>>
>>> drivers/tty/serial/xilinx_uartps.c | 3 ---
>>> 1 file changed, 3 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/tty/serial/xilinx_uartps.c b/drivers/tty/serial/xilinx_uartps.c
>>> index 8a3e34234e98..5f116f3ecd4a 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/tty/serial/xilinx_uartps.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/tty/serial/xilinx_uartps.c
>>> @@ -1510,15 +1510,12 @@ static int cdns_uart_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>>>
>>> /* At this point, we've got an empty uart_port struct, initialize it */
>>> spin_lock_init(&port->lock);
>>> - port->membase = NULL;
>>> - port->irq = 0;
>>> port->type = PORT_UNKNOWN;
>>> port->iotype = UPIO_MEM32;
>>> port->flags = UPF_BOOT_AUTOCONF;
>>> port->ops = &cdns_uart_ops;
>>> port->fifosize = CDNS_UART_FIFO_SIZE;
>>> port->line = id;
>>> - port->dev = NULL;
>>>
>>> /*
>>> * Register the port.
>>>
>>
>> Alan, Rob, Greg: Any comment about this RFC?
>
> I rarely review RFC patchesets as obviously you don't think it is good
> enough to be submitted "for real" :)
There is one missing minor part but I want to review concept first
because I didn't find any driver which is using this style.
> If you think this is all good, great, please resend it without the RFC
> and it will end up in my queue.
I will definitely do it but please look at the concept itself because I
would like to use this with at least 3 other drivers.
Thanks,
Michal
Powered by blists - more mailing lists