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

Andy Shevchenko
2024-02-21T13:13:35Z

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.

--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko