linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 02/18] pinctrl: pinctrl-single: remove dead code in suspend() and resume() callbacks

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <78add459-a96a-46c6-83ff-e2657d4d3db4@bootlin.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2024 08:59:47 +0100
From: Thomas Richard <thomas.richard@...tlin.com>
To: Andy Shevchenko <andy@...nel.org>
Cc: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
 Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl>, Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>,
 Haojian Zhuang <haojian.zhuang@...aro.org>, Vignesh R <vigneshr@...com>,
 Aaro Koskinen <aaro.koskinen@....fi>,
 Janusz Krzysztofik <jmkrzyszt@...il.com>, Andi Shyti
 <andi.shyti@...nel.org>, Peter Rosin <peda@...ntia.se>,
 Vinod Koul <vkoul@...nel.org>, Kishon Vijay Abraham I <kishon@...nel.org>,
 Philipp Zabel <p.zabel@...gutronix.de>,
 Lorenzo Pieralisi <lpieralisi@...nel.org>,
 Krzysztof Wilczyński <kw@...ux.com>,
 Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>, Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
 linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-omap@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org, linux-phy@...ts.infradead.org,
 linux-pci@...r.kernel.org, gregory.clement@...tlin.com,
 theo.lebrun@...tlin.com, thomas.petazzoni@...tlin.com, u-kumar1@...com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 02/18] pinctrl: pinctrl-single: remove dead code in
 suspend() and resume() callbacks

On 2/15/24 16:27, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 15, 2024 at 04:17:47PM +0100, Thomas Richard wrote:
>> No need to check the pointer returned by platform_get_drvdata(), as
>> platform_set_drvdata() is called during the probe.
> 
> This patch should go _after_ the next one, otherwise the commit message doesn't
> tell full story and the code change bring a potential regression.
> 

Hello Andy,

I'm ok to move this patch after the next one.
But for my understanding, could you explain me why changing the order is
important in this case ?

Regards,

-- 
Thomas Richard, Bootlin
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
https://bootlin.com