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

[Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@gmail.com>]

On 14.03.2025 08:45, Maxime Chevallier wrote:
> 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.
> 
This is part of the patch. Or what do you mean?

> One could argue that we can even remove tja11xx_hwmon_register()
> entirely
> 
It's called from two places, and we would have to duplicate some things
like IS_ERR(). I think it's ok to leave this function in.

> Thanks,
> 
> Maxime

Heiner