Re: [PATCH] i2c: drivers: Avoid unnecessary check inefm32_i2c_probe()

Uwe Kleine-König
2020-04-16T06:50:33Z

On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 09:30:22AM +0800, Tang Bin wrote:
> Hi Uwe:
>
> On 2020/4/15 22:31, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> > Same things apply as in the previous patch. (space after punctuation,
> > Sob of sender should be last)
> I will notice this problem next time, thanks.
> > > ---
> > > drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-efm32.c | 3 ---
> > > 1 file changed, 3 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-efm32.c b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-efm32.c
> > > index 4de31fae7..4786ef6b2 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-efm32.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-efm32.c
> > > @@ -312,9 +312,6 @@ static int efm32_i2c_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> > > int ret;
> > > u32 clkdiv;
> > > - if (!np)
> > > - return -EINVAL;
> > > -
> > I don't care much about this change. While the statement that this
> > driver is only instantiated on dt platforms is probably right,
> > explicitly checking for it might still prevent surprises later, serves
> > as explicit statement for the driver reader that non-dt isn't supposed
> > to work and given that the check is cheap I tend slightly to just keep
> > it.
> >
> In this driver, the function efm32_i2c_probe() can be triggered only if the
> platform_device and platform_driver matches,  and the matching condition is
> DTS. It's my opinion.

I admit I didn't recheck, but I think the driver will also be matched on
non-dt platforms that provide an "efm32-i2c" device.

Best regards
Uwe

--
Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-König |
Industrial Linux Solutions | https://www.pengutronix.de/ |