Re: [PATCH v1 1/1] iio: adc: ad7192: Revert "properly check spi_get_device_match_data()"

[Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>]

On Tue, Feb 17, 2026 at 01:47:59PM +0000, Nuno Sá wrote:
> On Tue, 2026-02-17 at 09:05 +0100, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > This reverts commit b7f99fa1b64af2f696b13cec581cb4cd7d3982b8.
> > 
> > The added code is currently a dead code. Moreover, the driver is not
> > designed to have any defaults effectively making driver data a mandatory
> > information to work with. Taking all together, revert unneeded change.
> > 
> > Reported-by: Harshit Mogalapalli <harshit.m.mogalapalli@oracle.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
> > ---
> >  drivers/iio/adc/ad7192.c | 3 ---
> >  1 file changed, 3 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/iio/adc/ad7192.c b/drivers/iio/adc/ad7192.c
> > index 530e1d307860..8b1664f6b102 100644
> > --- a/drivers/iio/adc/ad7192.c
> > +++ b/drivers/iio/adc/ad7192.c
> > @@ -1402,9 +1402,6 @@ static int ad7192_probe(struct spi_device *spi)
> >  	st->int_vref_mv = ret == -ENODEV ? avdd_mv : ret / MILLI;
> >  
> >  	st->chip_info = spi_get_device_match_data(spi);
> > -	if (!st->chip_info)
> > -		return -ENODEV;
> 
> I'm ok with this but as long as we get some consistency agreed on. So far,
> IIRC, the policy was to check for the NULL case even for the cases where that
> was not possible to happen.

Is it kernel-wide policy?
Because what I have heard is that:
- we don't do defensive programming for in-kernel data;
- we don't add a dead code
 (only for the exceptional cases usually accompanied with BUG() or WARN() call).

Both are kernel-wide. Am I mistaken?

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko