From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2497E19464 for ; Mon, 9 Oct 2023 13:13:43 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="Q1s1ld40" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A6D33C433C9; Mon, 9 Oct 2023 13:13:42 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1696857223; bh=LKHwPe31kWon9Rwjc97tFZkPtm2/8aB5Mh5don3lBPk=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=Q1s1ld40p5RgJPzabs1hrNV3D/sRHtWaqMNF1Da4ircj0KXYuIogoISIzihL/ZknS pFGrf9Gc5/v7psrcI8cTCYG1xfKbTTBr7rf0vd5UR4OPr8HlTgKFu8cYFIoi+pR8gt UZccyUDy9+ZslEb/iL25VDSu96NEW1Cf2e8VcKpXTbp2ZMB0R00uPjTFR9xpMmblry xJkcEGyqDdLpRwZLQTmg4UDaKSYYBi4989c7af9+tnVK9b91O/s4iFf6vU3XBIZlRe NUZZkkKenIwtSUn/bePfhltXDJi7aYILx46dDj/Kdc3PEe1YY/GLch+ixFL1eiIjIa GKZPfA4N5tXsg== Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2023 15:13:40 +0200 From: Simon Horman To: Rob Herring Cc: Chas Williams <3chas3@gmail.com>, linux-atm-general@lists.sourceforge.net, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] atm: fore200e: Drop unnecessary of_match_device() Message-ID: References: <20231006214421.339445-1-robh@kernel.org> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: netdev@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20231006214421.339445-1-robh@kernel.org> On Fri, Oct 06, 2023 at 04:44:21PM -0500, Rob Herring wrote: > It is not necessary to call of_match_device() in probe. If we made it to > probe, then we've already successfully matched. > > Signed-off-by: Rob Herring I agree that the check is redundant. And that with it removed, the forward declaration of fore200e_sba_match is no longer needed. Minor nit: I assume the target tree is net-next. Ideally that would be specified. Subject: [PATCH net-net] ... Reviewed-by: Simon Horman