[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20210823135438.kqsrkolixcgepyqq@pengutronix.de>
Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2021 15:54:38 +0200
From: Marc Kleine-Budde <mkl@...gutronix.de>
To: tangbin <tangbin@...s.chinamobile.com>
Cc: davem@...emloft.net, wg@...ndegger.com, kuba@...nel.org,
kevinbrace@...cecomputerlab.com, romieu@...zoreil.com,
linux-can@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] can: mscan: mpc5xxx_can: Useof_device_get_match_data
to simplify code
On 23.08.2021 21:52:03, tangbin wrote:
> On 2021/8/23 20:37, Marc Kleine-Budde wrote:
> > On 23.08.2021 19:33:38, Tang Bin wrote:
> > > Retrieve OF match data, it's better and cleaner to use
> > > 'of_device_get_match_data' over 'of_match_device'.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Tang Bin <tangbin@...s.chinamobile.com>
> > Thanks for the patch!
> >
> > LGTM, comment inside.
Acked-by: Marc Kleine-Budde <mkl@...gutronix.de>
> >
> > > ---
> > > drivers/net/can/mscan/mpc5xxx_can.c | 6 ++----
> > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/net/can/mscan/mpc5xxx_can.c b/drivers/net/can/mscan/mpc5xxx_can.c
> > > index e254e04ae..3b7465acd 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/net/can/mscan/mpc5xxx_can.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/net/can/mscan/mpc5xxx_can.c
> > > @@ -279,7 +279,6 @@ static u32 mpc512x_can_get_clock(struct platform_device *ofdev,
> > > static const struct of_device_id mpc5xxx_can_table[];
> > > static int mpc5xxx_can_probe(struct platform_device *ofdev)
> > > {
> > > - const struct of_device_id *match;
> > > const struct mpc5xxx_can_data *data;
> > > struct device_node *np = ofdev->dev.of_node;
> > > struct net_device *dev;
> > > @@ -289,10 +288,9 @@ static int mpc5xxx_can_probe(struct platform_device *ofdev)
> > > int irq, mscan_clksrc = 0;
> > > int err = -ENOMEM;
> > > - match = of_match_device(mpc5xxx_can_table, &ofdev->dev);
> > > - if (!match)
> > > + data = of_device_get_match_data(&ofdev->dev);
> > > + if (!data)
> > > return -EINVAL;
> > Please remove the "BUG_ON(!data)", which comes later.
>
> For this place, may I send another patch to fix this 'BUG_ON()' by itself,
> not in this patch series?
Ok, fine with me.
regards,
Marc
--
Pengutronix e.K. | Marc Kleine-Budde |
Embedded Linux | https://www.pengutronix.de |
Vertretung West/Dortmund | Phone: +49-231-2826-924 |
Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 |
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (489 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists