[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20210811121955.GD4167@sirena.org.uk>
Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2021 13:19:55 +0100
From: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To: tangbin <tangbin@...s.chinamobile.com>
Cc: olivier.moysan@...s.st.com, arnaud.pouliquen@...s.st.com,
lgirdwood@...il.com, perex@...ex.cz, tiwai@...e.com,
linux-stm32@...md-mailman.stormreply.com,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Zhang Shengju <zhangshengju@...s.chinamobile.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ASoC: stm32: spdifrx: Delete unnecessary check in
theprobe function
On Wed, Aug 11, 2021 at 08:09:00PM +0800, tangbin wrote:
> On 2021/8/11 19:58, Mark Brown wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 11, 2021 at 07:55:23PM +0800, Tang Bin wrote:
> > > The function stm32_spdifrx_parse_of() is only called by the function
> > > stm32_spdifrx_probe(), and the probe function is only called with
> > > an openfirmware platform device. Therefore there is no need to check
> > > the device_node in probe function.
> > What is the benefit of not doing the check? It seems like reasonable
> > defensive programming.
> I think it's unnecessary, because we all know than the probe function is
> only trigger if
> the device and the driver matches, and the trigger mode is just Device Tree.
> So the device_node
> must be exist in the probe function if it works. That's the reason why I
> think it's redundant.
I see why it is redundant, I don't see what problem this redudnancy
causes.
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (489 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists