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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <Zc96dSff5Y-dufrJ@smile.fi.intel.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2024 17:08:37 +0200
From: Andy Shevchenko <andy@...nel.org>
To: Thomas Richard <thomas.richard@...tlin.com>
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 Fri, Feb 16, 2024 at 08:59:47AM +0100, Thomas Richard wrote:
> 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 ?

Old PM calls obviously can be called in different circumstances and these
checks are important.

Just squash these two patches to avoid additional churn and we are done.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko