[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <a12639be-dd7b-d706-9c2e-35a99b816383@xilinx.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2018 09:18:08 +0200
From: Michal Simek <michal.simek@...inx.com>
To: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Michal Simek <michal.simek@...inx.com>
CC: Michal Simek <monstr@...str.eu>, <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 28.6.2018 01:48, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 04:19:46PM +0200, Michal Simek wrote:
>> 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.
>
> I don't have the time right now to review "concepts", sorry.
Ok. I will revup that missing part to get it review to be able to use it.
Thanks,
Michal
Powered by blists - more mailing lists