[PATCH 1/1] HID-picoLCD: Deletion of unnecessary checks before three function calls

[PATCH 1/1] HID-picoLCD: Deletion of unnecessary checks before three function calls

[SF Markus Elfring]

From: Markus Elfring <elfring@users.sourceforge.net>
Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2014 18:30:22 +0100

The functions backlight_device_unregister(), lcd_device_unregister() and
rc_unregister_device() test whether their argument is NULL and then
return immediately. Thus the test around the call is not needed.

This issue was detected by using the Coccinelle software.

Signed-off-by: Markus Elfring <elfring@users.sourceforge.net>
---
 drivers/hid/hid-picolcd_backlight.c | 3 +--
 drivers/hid/hid-picolcd_cir.c       | 3 +--
 drivers/hid/hid-picolcd_lcd.c       | 3 +--
 3 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/hid/hid-picolcd_backlight.c b/drivers/hid/hid-picolcd_backlight.c
index a32c5f8..808807a 100644
--- a/drivers/hid/hid-picolcd_backlight.c
+++ b/drivers/hid/hid-picolcd_backlight.c
@@ -94,8 +94,7 @@ void picolcd_exit_backlight(struct picolcd_data *data)
 	struct backlight_device *bdev = data->backlight;
 
 	data->backlight = NULL;
-	if (bdev)
-		backlight_device_unregister(bdev);
+	backlight_device_unregister(bdev);
 }
 
 int picolcd_resume_backlight(struct picolcd_data *data)
diff --git a/drivers/hid/hid-picolcd_cir.c b/drivers/hid/hid-picolcd_cir.c
index 045f8eb..9628651 100644
--- a/drivers/hid/hid-picolcd_cir.c
+++ b/drivers/hid/hid-picolcd_cir.c
@@ -145,7 +145,6 @@ void picolcd_exit_cir(struct picolcd_data *data)
 	struct rc_dev *rdev = data->rc_dev;
 
 	data->rc_dev = NULL;
-	if (rdev)
-		rc_unregister_device(rdev);
+	rc_unregister_device(rdev);
 }
 
diff --git a/drivers/hid/hid-picolcd_lcd.c b/drivers/hid/hid-picolcd_lcd.c
index 89821c2..22dcbe1 100644
--- a/drivers/hid/hid-picolcd_lcd.c
+++ b/drivers/hid/hid-picolcd_lcd.c
@@ -92,8 +92,7 @@ void picolcd_exit_lcd(struct picolcd_data *data)
 	struct lcd_device *ldev = data->lcd;
 
 	data->lcd = NULL;
-	if (ldev)
-		lcd_device_unregister(ldev);
+	lcd_device_unregister(ldev);
 }
 
 int picolcd_resume_lcd(struct picolcd_data *data)
-- 
2.1.3

Re: [PATCH] HID-picoLCD: Deletion of unnecessary checks before three function calls

[SF Markus Elfring]

> From: Markus Elfring <elfring@users.sourceforge.net>
> Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2014 18:30:22 +0100
> 
> The functions backlight_device_unregister(), lcd_device_unregister() and
> rc_unregister_device() test whether their argument is NULL and then
> return immediately. Thus the test around the call is not needed.
> 
> This issue was detected by using the Coccinelle software.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Markus Elfring <elfring@users.sourceforge.net>
> ---
>  drivers/hid/hid-picolcd_backlight.c | 3 +--
>  drivers/hid/hid-picolcd_cir.c       | 3 +--
>  drivers/hid/hid-picolcd_lcd.c       | 3 +--
>  3 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/hid/hid-picolcd_backlight.c b/drivers/hid/hid-picolcd_backlight.c
> index a32c5f8..808807a 100644
> --- a/drivers/hid/hid-picolcd_backlight.c
> +++ b/drivers/hid/hid-picolcd_backlight.c
> @@ -94,8 +94,7 @@ void picolcd_exit_backlight(struct picolcd_data *data)
>  	struct backlight_device *bdev = data->backlight;
>  
>  	data->backlight = NULL;
> -	if (bdev)
> -		backlight_device_unregister(bdev);
> +	backlight_device_unregister(bdev);
>  }
>  
>  int picolcd_resume_backlight(struct picolcd_data *data)
> diff --git a/drivers/hid/hid-picolcd_cir.c b/drivers/hid/hid-picolcd_cir.c
> index 045f8eb..9628651 100644
> --- a/drivers/hid/hid-picolcd_cir.c
> +++ b/drivers/hid/hid-picolcd_cir.c
> @@ -145,7 +145,6 @@ void picolcd_exit_cir(struct picolcd_data *data)
>  	struct rc_dev *rdev = data->rc_dev;
>  
>  	data->rc_dev = NULL;
> -	if (rdev)
> -		rc_unregister_device(rdev);
> +	rc_unregister_device(rdev);
>  }
>  
> diff --git a/drivers/hid/hid-picolcd_lcd.c b/drivers/hid/hid-picolcd_lcd.c
> index 89821c2..22dcbe1 100644
> --- a/drivers/hid/hid-picolcd_lcd.c
> +++ b/drivers/hid/hid-picolcd_lcd.c
> @@ -92,8 +92,7 @@ void picolcd_exit_lcd(struct picolcd_data *data)
>  	struct lcd_device *ldev = data->lcd;
>  
>  	data->lcd = NULL;
> -	if (ldev)
> -		lcd_device_unregister(ldev);
> +	lcd_device_unregister(ldev);
>  }
>  
>  int picolcd_resume_lcd(struct picolcd_data *data)
> 

Would you like to integrate this update suggestion
into another source code repository?

Regards,
Markus

Re: [PATCH] HID-picoLCD: Deletion of unnecessary checks before three function calls

[Bruno Prémont]

On Sun, 28 Jun 2015 13:54:56 +0200 SF Markus Elfring wrote:
> > From: Markus Elfring <elfring@users.sourceforge.net>
> > Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2014 18:30:22 +0100
> > 
> > The functions backlight_device_unregister(), lcd_device_unregister() and
> > rc_unregister_device() test whether their argument is NULL and then
> > return immediately. Thus the test around the call is not needed.
> > 
> > This issue was detected by using the Coccinelle software.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Markus Elfring <elfring@users.sourceforge.net>
> > ---
> >  drivers/hid/hid-picolcd_backlight.c | 3 +--
> >  drivers/hid/hid-picolcd_cir.c       | 3 +--
> >  drivers/hid/hid-picolcd_lcd.c       | 3 +--
> >  3 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/hid/hid-picolcd_backlight.c b/drivers/hid/hid-picolcd_backlight.c
> > index a32c5f8..808807a 100644
> > --- a/drivers/hid/hid-picolcd_backlight.c
> > +++ b/drivers/hid/hid-picolcd_backlight.c
> > @@ -94,8 +94,7 @@ void picolcd_exit_backlight(struct picolcd_data *data)
> >  	struct backlight_device *bdev = data->backlight;
> >  
> >  	data->backlight = NULL;
> > -	if (bdev)
> > -		backlight_device_unregister(bdev);
> > +	backlight_device_unregister(bdev);
> >  }
> >  
> >  int picolcd_resume_backlight(struct picolcd_data *data)
> > diff --git a/drivers/hid/hid-picolcd_cir.c b/drivers/hid/hid-picolcd_cir.c
> > index 045f8eb..9628651 100644
> > --- a/drivers/hid/hid-picolcd_cir.c
> > +++ b/drivers/hid/hid-picolcd_cir.c
> > @@ -145,7 +145,6 @@ void picolcd_exit_cir(struct picolcd_data *data)
> >  	struct rc_dev *rdev = data->rc_dev;
> >  
> >  	data->rc_dev = NULL;
> > -	if (rdev)
> > -		rc_unregister_device(rdev);
> > +	rc_unregister_device(rdev);
> >  }
> >  
> > diff --git a/drivers/hid/hid-picolcd_lcd.c b/drivers/hid/hid-picolcd_lcd.c
> > index 89821c2..22dcbe1 100644
> > --- a/drivers/hid/hid-picolcd_lcd.c
> > +++ b/drivers/hid/hid-picolcd_lcd.c
> > @@ -92,8 +92,7 @@ void picolcd_exit_lcd(struct picolcd_data *data)
> >  	struct lcd_device *ldev = data->lcd;
> >  
> >  	data->lcd = NULL;
> > -	if (ldev)
> > -		lcd_device_unregister(ldev);
> > +	lcd_device_unregister(ldev);
> >  }
> >  
> >  int picolcd_resume_lcd(struct picolcd_data *data)
> > 
> 
> Would you like to integrate this update suggestion
> into another source code repository?

Sorry for forgetting about this patch.

Looks good to me:
  Reviewed-by: Bruno Prémont <bonbons@linux-vserver.org>

Jiri, can you take it?

Best regards,
Bruno

> Regards,
> Markus

Re: [PATCH] HID-picoLCD: Deletion of unnecessary checks before three function calls

[Jiri Kosina]

On Mon, 29 Jun 2015, Bruno Prémont wrote:

> Sorry for forgetting about this patch.
> 
> Looks good to me:
>   Reviewed-by: Bruno Prémont <bonbons@linux-vserver.org>
> 
> Jiri, can you take it?

Could either of you please bounce me the original patch? I don't think 
I've seen in in my mailbox (or it's too long time ago).

Thanks,

-- 
Jiri Kosina
SUSE Labs
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-input" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

[PATCH 1/1] HID: Wacom: Deletion of unnecessary checks before the function call "input_free_device"

[SF Markus Elfring]

From: Markus Elfring <elfring@users.sourceforge.net>
Date: Sat, 29 Nov 2014 15:16:01 +0100

The input_free_device() function tests whether its argument is NULL and then
returns immediately. Thus the test around the call is not needed.

This issue was detected by using the Coccinelle software.

Signed-off-by: Markus Elfring <elfring@users.sourceforge.net>
---
 drivers/hid/wacom_sys.c | 6 ++----
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/hid/wacom_sys.c b/drivers/hid/wacom_sys.c
index eb55316..21ced00 100644
--- a/drivers/hid/wacom_sys.c
+++ b/drivers/hid/wacom_sys.c
@@ -1099,10 +1099,8 @@ static void wacom_free_inputs(struct wacom *wacom)
 {
 	struct wacom_wac *wacom_wac = &(wacom->wacom_wac);
 
-	if (wacom_wac->input)
-		input_free_device(wacom_wac->input);
-	if (wacom_wac->pad_input)
-		input_free_device(wacom_wac->pad_input);
+	input_free_device(wacom_wac->input);
+	input_free_device(wacom_wac->pad_input);
 	wacom_wac->input = NULL;
 	wacom_wac->pad_input = NULL;
 }
-- 
2.1.3

[PATCH v2] HID: Wacom: Delete unnecessary checks before the function call "input_free_device"

[SF Markus Elfring]

From: Markus Elfring <elfring@users.sourceforge.net>
Date: Thu, 9 Jul 2015 08:00:10 +0200

The input_free_device() function tests whether its argument is NULL and
then returns immediately. Thus the test around the call is not needed.

This issue was detected by using the Coccinelle software.

Signed-off-by: Markus Elfring <elfring@users.sourceforge.net>
---
 drivers/hid/wacom_sys.c | 9 +++------
 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/hid/wacom_sys.c b/drivers/hid/wacom_sys.c
index 4c0ffca..936ad77 100644
--- a/drivers/hid/wacom_sys.c
+++ b/drivers/hid/wacom_sys.c
@@ -1149,12 +1149,9 @@ static void wacom_free_inputs(struct wacom *wacom)
 {
 	struct wacom_wac *wacom_wac = &(wacom->wacom_wac);
 
-	if (wacom_wac->pen_input)
-		input_free_device(wacom_wac->pen_input);
-	if (wacom_wac->touch_input)
-		input_free_device(wacom_wac->touch_input);
-	if (wacom_wac->pad_input)
-		input_free_device(wacom_wac->pad_input);
+	input_free_device(wacom_wac->pen_input);
+	input_free_device(wacom_wac->touch_input);
+	input_free_device(wacom_wac->pad_input);
 	wacom_wac->pen_input = NULL;
 	wacom_wac->touch_input = NULL;
 	wacom_wac->pad_input = NULL;
-- 
2.4.5

Re: [PATCH v2] HID: Wacom: Delete unnecessary checks before the function call "input_free_device"

[Jiri Kosina]

On Thu, 9 Jul 2015, SF Markus Elfring wrote:

> From: Markus Elfring <elfring@users.sourceforge.net>
> Date: Thu, 9 Jul 2015 08:00:10 +0200
> 
> The input_free_device() function tests whether its argument is NULL and
> then returns immediately. Thus the test around the call is not needed.
> 
> This issue was detected by using the Coccinelle software.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Markus Elfring <elfring@users.sourceforge.net>

This is really on a "is it worth it?" borderline, but anyway ... applied 
to for-4.3/upstream.

Thanks,

-- 
Jiri Kosina
SUSE Labs

[PATCH] Input: Delete an unnecessary check before the function call "input_free_device"

[SF Markus Elfring]

From: Markus Elfring <elfring@users.sourceforge.net>
Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2015 17:35:35 +0100

The input_free_device() function tests whether its argument is NULL and then
returns immediately. Thus the test around the call is not needed.

This issue was detected by using the Coccinelle software.

Signed-off-by: Markus Elfring <elfring@users.sourceforge.net>
---
 drivers/input/joystick/adi.c | 3 +--
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/input/joystick/adi.c b/drivers/input/joystick/adi.c
index b784257..d09cefa 100644
--- a/drivers/input/joystick/adi.c
+++ b/drivers/input/joystick/adi.c
@@ -535,8 +535,7 @@ static int adi_connect(struct gameport *gameport, struct gameport_driver *drv)
 		}
 	}
  fail2:	for (i = 0; i < 2; i++)
-		if (port->adi[i].dev)
-			input_free_device(port->adi[i].dev);
+		input_free_device(port->adi[i].dev);
 	gameport_close(gameport);
  fail1:	gameport_set_drvdata(gameport, NULL);
 	kfree(port);
-- 
2.2.2

Re: [PATCH] Input: Delete an unnecessary check before the function call "input_free_device"

[Dmitry Torokhov]

On Thu, Feb 05, 2015 at 05:40:20PM +0100, SF Markus Elfring wrote:
> From: Markus Elfring <elfring@users.sourceforge.net>
> Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2015 17:35:35 +0100
> 
> The input_free_device() function tests whether its argument is NULL and then
> returns immediately. Thus the test around the call is not needed.
> 
> This issue was detected by using the Coccinelle software.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Markus Elfring <elfring@users.sourceforge.net>

Applied, thank you.

> ---
>  drivers/input/joystick/adi.c | 3 +--
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/input/joystick/adi.c b/drivers/input/joystick/adi.c
> index b784257..d09cefa 100644
> --- a/drivers/input/joystick/adi.c
> +++ b/drivers/input/joystick/adi.c
> @@ -535,8 +535,7 @@ static int adi_connect(struct gameport *gameport, struct gameport_driver *drv)
>  		}
>  	}
>   fail2:	for (i = 0; i < 2; i++)
> -		if (port->adi[i].dev)
> -			input_free_device(port->adi[i].dev);
> +		input_free_device(port->adi[i].dev);
>  	gameport_close(gameport);
>   fail1:	gameport_set_drvdata(gameport, NULL);
>  	kfree(port);
> -- 
> 2.2.2
> 

-- 
Dmitry

[PATCH] i2c-HID: Delete unnecessary checks before the function call "gpiod_put"

[SF Markus Elfring]

From: Markus Elfring <elfring@users.sourceforge.net>
Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2015 22:12:25 +0200

The gpiod_put() function performs also input parameter validation
by forwarding its single input pointer to the gpiod_free() function.
Thus the test around the calls is not needed.

This issue was detected by using the Coccinelle software.

Signed-off-by: Markus Elfring <elfring@users.sourceforge.net>
---
 drivers/hid/i2c-hid/i2c-hid.c | 8 ++------
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/hid/i2c-hid/i2c-hid.c b/drivers/hid/i2c-hid/i2c-hid.c
index f77469d..09ff4e7 100644
--- a/drivers/hid/i2c-hid/i2c-hid.c
+++ b/drivers/hid/i2c-hid/i2c-hid.c
@@ -1048,9 +1048,7 @@ err_pm:
 	pm_runtime_disable(&client->dev);
 
 err:
-	if (ihid->desc)
-		gpiod_put(ihid->desc);
-
+	gpiod_put(ihid->desc);
 	i2c_hid_free_buffers(ihid);
 	kfree(ihid);
 	return ret;
@@ -1074,9 +1072,7 @@ static int i2c_hid_remove(struct i2c_client *client)
 	if (ihid->bufsize)
 		i2c_hid_free_buffers(ihid);
 
-	if (ihid->desc)
-		gpiod_put(ihid->desc);
-
+	gpiod_put(ihid->desc);
 	kfree(ihid);
 
 	acpi_dev_remove_driver_gpios(ACPI_COMPANION(&client->dev));
-- 
2.4.5

Re: [PATCH] i2c-HID: Delete unnecessary checks before the function call "gpiod_put"

[Dan Carpenter]

This one deserves some extra review because it introduces a call to:

	WARN_ON(extra_checks);

in gpiod_free().  That may or may not matter...

regards,
dan carpenter

Re: [PATCH] i2c-HID: Delete unnecessary checks before the function call "gpiod_put"

[Jiri Kosina]

On Wed, 8 Jul 2015, SF Markus Elfring wrote:

> From: Markus Elfring <elfring@users.sourceforge.net>
> Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2015 22:12:25 +0200
> 
> The gpiod_put() function performs also input parameter validation
> by forwarding its single input pointer to the gpiod_free() function.
> Thus the test around the calls is not needed.
> 
> This issue was detected by using the Coccinelle software.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Markus Elfring <elfring@users.sourceforge.net>

As Dan correctly pointed out, this is not as straightforward as it might 
seem on a firsr sight, because there is a WARN_ON() that might start 
triggering in case of !ihid->desc.

Adding Benjamin. I am not applying this without his Ack.

-- 
Jiri Kosina
SUSE Labs

Re: [PATCH] i2c-HID: Delete unnecessary checks before the function call "gpiod_put"

[Benjamin Tissoires]

On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 8:34 AM, Jiri Kosina <jkosina@suse.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 8 Jul 2015, SF Markus Elfring wrote:
>
>> From: Markus Elfring <elfring@users.sourceforge.net>
>> Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2015 22:12:25 +0200
>>
>> The gpiod_put() function performs also input parameter validation
>> by forwarding its single input pointer to the gpiod_free() function.
>> Thus the test around the calls is not needed.
>>
>> This issue was detected by using the Coccinelle software.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Markus Elfring <elfring@users.sourceforge.net>
>
> As Dan correctly pointed out, this is not as straightforward as it might
> seem on a firsr sight, because there is a WARN_ON() that might start
> triggering in case of !ihid->desc.
>
> Adding Benjamin. I am not applying this without his Ack.
>

I think the gpiod case is the exception rather than the common rule
(most i2c-hid device we saw until recently were using irqs, not
gpios). So if I understand correctly, removing the check on ihid->desc
would raise a warning for most devices. This is IMO not a good thing,
so I would say NACK.

Mika might have a different opinion though.

Cheers,
Benjamin

Re: i2c-HID: Delete unnecessary checks before the function call "gpiod_put"

[SF Markus Elfring]

>>> The gpiod_put() function performs also input parameter validation
>>> by forwarding its single input pointer to the gpiod_free() function.
>>> Thus the test around the calls is not needed.
>>>
>>> This issue was detected by using the Coccinelle software.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Markus Elfring <elfring@users.sourceforge.net>
>>
>> As Dan correctly pointed out, this is not as straightforward as it might
>> seem on a firsr sight, because there is a WARN_ON() that might start
>> triggering in case of !ihid->desc.
>>
>> Adding Benjamin. I am not applying this without his Ack.
>>
> 
> I think the gpiod case is the exception rather than the common rule
> (most i2c-hid device we saw until recently were using irqs, not
> gpios). So if I understand correctly, removing the check on ihid->desc
> would raise a warning for most devices. This is IMO not a good thing,
> so I would say NACK.
> 
> Mika might have a different opinion though.

The proposed update candidates are contained in the source
file "drivers/hid/i2c-hid/i2c-hid.c" from Linux next-20150708.

* i2c_hid_remove() function:
  Can it be tolerated here that the pointer "ihid->desc" might be eventually null?

* i2c_hid_probe() function:
  Is this implementation structured in such a way that a pointer for valid data
  will be usually passed for "ihid->desc" if the statements after the jump
  label "err" will be reached?

Regards,
Markus

Re: i2c-HID: Delete unnecessary checks before the function call "gpiod_put"

[Benjamin Tissoires]

On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 4:49 PM, SF Markus Elfring
<elfring@users.sourceforge.net> wrote:
>>>> The gpiod_put() function performs also input parameter validation
>>>> by forwarding its single input pointer to the gpiod_free() function.
>>>> Thus the test around the calls is not needed.
>>>>
>>>> This issue was detected by using the Coccinelle software.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Markus Elfring <elfring@users.sourceforge.net>
>>>
>>> As Dan correctly pointed out, this is not as straightforward as it might
>>> seem on a firsr sight, because there is a WARN_ON() that might start
>>> triggering in case of !ihid->desc.
>>>
>>> Adding Benjamin. I am not applying this without his Ack.
>>>
>>
>> I think the gpiod case is the exception rather than the common rule
>> (most i2c-hid device we saw until recently were using irqs, not
>> gpios). So if I understand correctly, removing the check on ihid->desc
>> would raise a warning for most devices. This is IMO not a good thing,
>> so I would say NACK.
>>
>> Mika might have a different opinion though.
>
> The proposed update candidates are contained in the source
> file "drivers/hid/i2c-hid/i2c-hid.c" from Linux next-20150708.
>
> * i2c_hid_remove() function:
>   Can it be tolerated here that the pointer "ihid->desc" might be eventually null?
>
> * i2c_hid_probe() function:
>   Is this implementation structured in such a way that a pointer for valid data
>   will be usually passed for "ihid->desc" if the statements after the jump
>   label "err" will be reached?
>

Again, in both case it is completely normal to have "ihid->desc ==
NULL" given that this field is only retrieved in case of an ACPI
device which does not declares an IRQ but a GPIO. Most ACPI devices I
saw are using a simple IRQ, and the OF instantiations of the driver
will definitively have ihid->desc null. So I do not want to have a
warning for most of i2c-hid devices out there (because I will have to
explain that this is completely normal again and again).

Cheers,
Benjamin

Re: i2c-HID: Delete unnecessary checks before the function call "gpiod_put"

[SF Markus Elfring]

>> The proposed update candidates are contained in the source
>> file "drivers/hid/i2c-hid/i2c-hid.c" from Linux next-20150708.
>>
>> * i2c_hid_remove() function:
>>   Can it be tolerated here that the pointer "ihid->desc" might be eventually null?
>>
>> * i2c_hid_probe() function:
>>   Is this implementation structured in such a way that a pointer for valid data
>>   will be usually passed for "ihid->desc" if the statements after the jump
>>   label "err" will be reached?
>>
> 
> Again, in both case it is completely normal to have "ihid->desc ==
> NULL" given that this field is only retrieved in case of an ACPI
> device which does not declares an IRQ but a GPIO. Most ACPI devices I
> saw are using a simple IRQ, and the OF instantiations of the driver
> will definitively have ihid->desc null. So I do not want to have a
> warning for most of i2c-hid devices out there (because I will have to
> explain that this is completely normal again and again).

Would it make sense to annotate checks before such function calls
as "unlikely" then?

Regards,
Markus

Re: i2c-HID: Delete unnecessary checks before the function call "gpiod_put"

[Benjamin Tissoires]

On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 5:10 PM, SF Markus Elfring
<elfring@users.sourceforge.net> wrote:
>>> The proposed update candidates are contained in the source
>>> file "drivers/hid/i2c-hid/i2c-hid.c" from Linux next-20150708.
>>>
>>> * i2c_hid_remove() function:
>>>   Can it be tolerated here that the pointer "ihid->desc" might be eventually null?
>>>
>>> * i2c_hid_probe() function:
>>>   Is this implementation structured in such a way that a pointer for valid data
>>>   will be usually passed for "ihid->desc" if the statements after the jump
>>>   label "err" will be reached?
>>>
>>
>> Again, in both case it is completely normal to have "ihid->desc ==
>> NULL" given that this field is only retrieved in case of an ACPI
>> device which does not declares an IRQ but a GPIO. Most ACPI devices I
>> saw are using a simple IRQ, and the OF instantiations of the driver
>> will definitively have ihid->desc null. So I do not want to have a
>> warning for most of i2c-hid devices out there (because I will have to
>> explain that this is completely normal again and again).
>
> Would it make sense to annotate checks before such function calls
> as "unlikely" then?
>

I don't see the benefits of this right now. These calls are not time
critical and it's not because today they are few devices with GPIOs
rather than IRQs that it will be the case all the time.
You can always submit a patch preventing coccinelle to raise this
warning, but maybe a simple comment in the code would be enough.

Cheers,
Benjamin

[PATCH] HID: Wacom: Delete an unnecessary check before the function call "kobject_put"

[SF Markus Elfring]

From: Markus Elfring <elfring@users.sourceforge.net>
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 2015 17:55:23 +0100

The kobject_put() function tests whether its argument is NULL and then
returns immediately. Thus the test around the call is not needed.

This issue was detected by using the Coccinelle software.

Signed-off-by: Markus Elfring <elfring@users.sourceforge.net>
---
 drivers/hid/wacom_sys.c | 3 +--
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/hid/wacom_sys.c b/drivers/hid/wacom_sys.c
index 125e9d5..fb9b1d1 100644
--- a/drivers/hid/wacom_sys.c
+++ b/drivers/hid/wacom_sys.c
@@ -1353,8 +1353,7 @@ static void wacom_clean_inputs(struct wacom *wacom)
 		else
 			input_free_device(wacom->wacom_wac.pad_input);
 	}
-	if (wacom->remote_dir)
-		kobject_put(wacom->remote_dir);
+	kobject_put(wacom->remote_dir);
 	wacom->wacom_wac.pen_input = NULL;
 	wacom->wacom_wac.touch_input = NULL;
 	wacom->wacom_wac.pad_input = NULL;
-- 
2.6.2

Re: [PATCH] HID: Wacom: Delete an unnecessary check before the function call "kobject_put"

[Jiri Kosina]

On Fri, 6 Nov 2015, SF Markus Elfring wrote:

> From: Markus Elfring <elfring@users.sourceforge.net>
> Date: Fri, 6 Nov 2015 17:55:23 +0100
> 
> The kobject_put() function tests whether its argument is NULL and then
> returns immediately. Thus the test around the call is not needed.
> 
> This issue was detected by using the Coccinelle software.

Applied to for-4.5/wacom.

Thanks,

-- 
Jiri Kosina
SUSE Labs

[PATCH] Input-rmi_bus: Delete an unnecessary check before the function call "of_node_put"

[SF Markus Elfring]

From: Markus Elfring <elfring@users.sourceforge.net>
Date: Sun, 24 Jul 2016 07:37:23 +0200

The of_node_put() function tests whether its argument is NULL and then
returns immediately. Thus the test around the call is not needed.

This issue was detected by using the Coccinelle software.

Signed-off-by: Markus Elfring <elfring@users.sourceforge.net>
---
 drivers/input/rmi4/rmi_bus.c | 5 +----
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 4 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/input/rmi4/rmi_bus.c b/drivers/input/rmi4/rmi_bus.c
index 253df96..a735806 100644
--- a/drivers/input/rmi4/rmi_bus.c
+++ b/drivers/input/rmi4/rmi_bus.c
@@ -232,10 +232,7 @@ err_put_device:
 void rmi_unregister_function(struct rmi_function *fn)
 {
 	device_del(&fn->dev);
-
-	if (fn->dev.of_node)
-		of_node_put(fn->dev.of_node);
-
+	of_node_put(fn->dev.of_node);
 	put_device(&fn->dev);
 }
 
-- 
2.9.2

Re: [PATCH] Input-rmi_bus: Delete an unnecessary check before the function call "of_node_put"

[Dmitry Torokhov]

On Sun, Jul 24, 2016 at 09:35:56AM +0200, SF Markus Elfring wrote:
> From: Markus Elfring <elfring@users.sourceforge.net>
> Date: Sun, 24 Jul 2016 07:37:23 +0200
> 
> The of_node_put() function tests whether its argument is NULL and then
> returns immediately. Thus the test around the call is not needed.
> 
> This issue was detected by using the Coccinelle software.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Markus Elfring <elfring@users.sourceforge.net>

Applied, thank you.

> ---
>  drivers/input/rmi4/rmi_bus.c | 5 +----
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 4 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/input/rmi4/rmi_bus.c b/drivers/input/rmi4/rmi_bus.c
> index 253df96..a735806 100644
> --- a/drivers/input/rmi4/rmi_bus.c
> +++ b/drivers/input/rmi4/rmi_bus.c
> @@ -232,10 +232,7 @@ err_put_device:
>  void rmi_unregister_function(struct rmi_function *fn)
>  {
>  	device_del(&fn->dev);
> -
> -	if (fn->dev.of_node)
> -		of_node_put(fn->dev.of_node);
> -
> +	of_node_put(fn->dev.of_node);
>  	put_device(&fn->dev);
>  }
>  
> -- 
> 2.9.2
> 

-- 
Dmitry