Re: [PATCH net-next 2/4] net: phy: tja11xx: remove call to devm_hwmon_sanitize_name

[Maxime Chevallier <maxime.chevallier@bootlin.com>]

Hello Heiner,

On Thu, 13 Mar 2025 20:45:06 +0100
Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@gmail.com> wrote:

> Since c909e68f8127 ("hwmon: (core) Use device name as a fallback in
> devm_hwmon_device_register_with_info") we can simply provide NULL
> as name argument.
> 
> Note that neither priv->hwmon_name nor priv->hwmon_dev are used
> outside tja11xx_hwmon_register.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@gmail.com>
> ---
>  drivers/net/phy/nxp-tja11xx.c | 19 +++++--------------
>  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/net/phy/nxp-tja11xx.c b/drivers/net/phy/nxp-tja11xx.c
> index 601094fe2..07e94a247 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/phy/nxp-tja11xx.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/phy/nxp-tja11xx.c
> @@ -87,8 +87,6 @@
>  #define TJA110X_RMII_MODE_REFCLK_IN       BIT(0)
>  
>  struct tja11xx_priv {
> -	char		*hwmon_name;
> -	struct device	*hwmon_dev;
>  	struct phy_device *phydev;
>  	struct work_struct phy_register_work;
>  	u32 flags;
> @@ -508,19 +506,12 @@ static const struct hwmon_chip_info tja11xx_hwmon_chip_info = {
>  static int tja11xx_hwmon_register(struct phy_device *phydev,
>  				  struct tja11xx_priv *priv)
>  {
> -	struct device *dev = &phydev->mdio.dev;
> -
> -	priv->hwmon_name = devm_hwmon_sanitize_name(dev, dev_name(dev));
> -	if (IS_ERR(priv->hwmon_name))
> -		return PTR_ERR(priv->hwmon_name);
> -
> -	priv->hwmon_dev =
> -		devm_hwmon_device_register_with_info(dev, priv->hwmon_name,
> -						     phydev,
> -						     &tja11xx_hwmon_chip_info,
> -						     NULL);
> +	struct device *hdev, *dev = &phydev->mdio.dev;
>  
> -	return PTR_ERR_OR_ZERO(priv->hwmon_dev);
> +	hdev = devm_hwmon_device_register_with_info(dev, NULL, phydev,
> +						    &tja11xx_hwmon_chip_info,
> +						    NULL);
> +	return PTR_ERR_OR_ZERO(hdev);
>  }

The change look correct to me, however I think you can go one step
further and remove the field tja11xx_priv.hwmon_name as well as
hwmon_dev.

One could argue that we can even remove tja11xx_hwmon_register()
entirely

Thanks,

Maxime