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

Thomas Richard
2024-02-21T14:19:29Z

On 2/21/24 14:13, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 21, 2024 at 12:01:43PM +0100, Thomas Richard wrote:
>> On 2/16/24 16:08, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>>> 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.
>>
>> You mean invert the order instead of squash.
>
> Either would work, but see how much churn in terms of changing just changed
> lines it adds.

OK thanks.

I'll squash the two patches. And I'll add a comment which explains that
I dropped some dead code.

Regards,

--
Thomas Richard, Bootlin
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering