| Message ID | e8b0169887855a5ef2c1a0456842f650601b451c.1528288895.git.michal.simek@xilinx.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
On 6.6.2018 14:41, Michal Simek wrote: > Writing zero and NULLs to already initialized fields is not needed. > Remove this additional writes. > > Signed-off-by: Michal Simek <michal.simek@xilinx.com> > --- > > Changes in v2: > - new patch - it can be sent separately too > > drivers/tty/serial/xilinx_uartps.c | 3 --- > 1 file changed, 3 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/tty/serial/xilinx_uartps.c b/drivers/tty/serial/xilinx_uartps.c > index 8a3e34234e98..5f116f3ecd4a 100644 > --- a/drivers/tty/serial/xilinx_uartps.c > +++ b/drivers/tty/serial/xilinx_uartps.c > @@ -1510,15 +1510,12 @@ static int cdns_uart_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) > > /* At this point, we've got an empty uart_port struct, initialize it */ > spin_lock_init(&port->lock); > - port->membase = NULL; > - port->irq = 0; > port->type = PORT_UNKNOWN; > port->iotype = UPIO_MEM32; > port->flags = UPF_BOOT_AUTOCONF; > port->ops = &cdns_uart_ops; > port->fifosize = CDNS_UART_FIFO_SIZE; > port->line = id; > - port->dev = NULL; > > /* > * Register the port. > Alan, Rob, Greg: Any comment about this RFC? Thanks, Michal
On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 10:09:05AM +0200, Michal Simek wrote: > On 6.6.2018 14:41, Michal Simek wrote: > > Writing zero and NULLs to already initialized fields is not needed. > > Remove this additional writes. > > > > Signed-off-by: Michal Simek <michal.simek@xilinx.com> > > --- > > > > Changes in v2: > > - new patch - it can be sent separately too > > > > drivers/tty/serial/xilinx_uartps.c | 3 --- > > 1 file changed, 3 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/tty/serial/xilinx_uartps.c b/drivers/tty/serial/xilinx_uartps.c > > index 8a3e34234e98..5f116f3ecd4a 100644 > > --- a/drivers/tty/serial/xilinx_uartps.c > > +++ b/drivers/tty/serial/xilinx_uartps.c > > @@ -1510,15 +1510,12 @@ static int cdns_uart_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) > > > > /* At this point, we've got an empty uart_port struct, initialize it */ > > spin_lock_init(&port->lock); > > - port->membase = NULL; > > - port->irq = 0; > > port->type = PORT_UNKNOWN; > > port->iotype = UPIO_MEM32; > > port->flags = UPF_BOOT_AUTOCONF; > > port->ops = &cdns_uart_ops; > > port->fifosize = CDNS_UART_FIFO_SIZE; > > port->line = id; > > - port->dev = NULL; > > > > /* > > * Register the port. > > > > Alan, Rob, Greg: Any comment about this RFC? I rarely review RFC patchesets as obviously you don't think it is good enough to be submitted "for real" :) If you think this is all good, great, please resend it without the RFC and it will end up in my queue. thanks, greg k-h
On 27.6.2018 12:09, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 10:09:05AM +0200, Michal Simek wrote: >> On 6.6.2018 14:41, Michal Simek wrote: >>> Writing zero and NULLs to already initialized fields is not needed. >>> Remove this additional writes. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Michal Simek <michal.simek@xilinx.com> >>> --- >>> >>> Changes in v2: >>> - new patch - it can be sent separately too >>> >>> drivers/tty/serial/xilinx_uartps.c | 3 --- >>> 1 file changed, 3 deletions(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/drivers/tty/serial/xilinx_uartps.c b/drivers/tty/serial/xilinx_uartps.c >>> index 8a3e34234e98..5f116f3ecd4a 100644 >>> --- a/drivers/tty/serial/xilinx_uartps.c >>> +++ b/drivers/tty/serial/xilinx_uartps.c >>> @@ -1510,15 +1510,12 @@ static int cdns_uart_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) >>> >>> /* At this point, we've got an empty uart_port struct, initialize it */ >>> spin_lock_init(&port->lock); >>> - port->membase = NULL; >>> - port->irq = 0; >>> port->type = PORT_UNKNOWN; >>> port->iotype = UPIO_MEM32; >>> port->flags = UPF_BOOT_AUTOCONF; >>> port->ops = &cdns_uart_ops; >>> port->fifosize = CDNS_UART_FIFO_SIZE; >>> port->line = id; >>> - port->dev = NULL; >>> >>> /* >>> * Register the port. >>> >> >> Alan, Rob, Greg: Any comment about this RFC? > > I rarely review RFC patchesets as obviously you don't think it is good > enough to be submitted "for real" :) There is one missing minor part but I want to review concept first because I didn't find any driver which is using this style. > If you think this is all good, great, please resend it without the RFC > and it will end up in my queue. I will definitely do it but please look at the concept itself because I would like to use this with at least 3 other drivers. Thanks, Michal
On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 04:19:46PM +0200, Michal Simek wrote: > On 27.6.2018 12:09, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 10:09:05AM +0200, Michal Simek wrote: > >> On 6.6.2018 14:41, Michal Simek wrote: > >>> Writing zero and NULLs to already initialized fields is not needed. > >>> Remove this additional writes. > >>> > >>> Signed-off-by: Michal Simek <michal.simek@xilinx.com> > >>> --- > >>> > >>> Changes in v2: > >>> - new patch - it can be sent separately too > >>> > >>> drivers/tty/serial/xilinx_uartps.c | 3 --- > >>> 1 file changed, 3 deletions(-) > >>> > >>> diff --git a/drivers/tty/serial/xilinx_uartps.c b/drivers/tty/serial/xilinx_uartps.c > >>> index 8a3e34234e98..5f116f3ecd4a 100644 > >>> --- a/drivers/tty/serial/xilinx_uartps.c > >>> +++ b/drivers/tty/serial/xilinx_uartps.c > >>> @@ -1510,15 +1510,12 @@ static int cdns_uart_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) > >>> > >>> /* At this point, we've got an empty uart_port struct, initialize it */ > >>> spin_lock_init(&port->lock); > >>> - port->membase = NULL; > >>> - port->irq = 0; > >>> port->type = PORT_UNKNOWN; > >>> port->iotype = UPIO_MEM32; > >>> port->flags = UPF_BOOT_AUTOCONF; > >>> port->ops = &cdns_uart_ops; > >>> port->fifosize = CDNS_UART_FIFO_SIZE; > >>> port->line = id; > >>> - port->dev = NULL; > >>> > >>> /* > >>> * Register the port. > >>> > >> > >> Alan, Rob, Greg: Any comment about this RFC? > > > > I rarely review RFC patchesets as obviously you don't think it is good > > enough to be submitted "for real" :) > > There is one missing minor part but I want to review concept first > because I didn't find any driver which is using this style. > > > If you think this is all good, great, please resend it without the RFC > > and it will end up in my queue. > > I will definitely do it but please look at the concept itself because I > would like to use this with at least 3 other drivers. I don't have the time right now to review "concepts", sorry. greg k-h
On 28.6.2018 01:48, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 04:19:46PM +0200, Michal Simek wrote: >> On 27.6.2018 12:09, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: >>> On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 10:09:05AM +0200, Michal Simek wrote: >>>> On 6.6.2018 14:41, Michal Simek wrote: >>>>> Writing zero and NULLs to already initialized fields is not needed. >>>>> Remove this additional writes. >>>>> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Michal Simek <michal.simek@xilinx.com> >>>>> --- >>>>> >>>>> Changes in v2: >>>>> - new patch - it can be sent separately too >>>>> >>>>> drivers/tty/serial/xilinx_uartps.c | 3 --- >>>>> 1 file changed, 3 deletions(-) >>>>> >>>>> diff --git a/drivers/tty/serial/xilinx_uartps.c b/drivers/tty/serial/xilinx_uartps.c >>>>> index 8a3e34234e98..5f116f3ecd4a 100644 >>>>> --- a/drivers/tty/serial/xilinx_uartps.c >>>>> +++ b/drivers/tty/serial/xilinx_uartps.c >>>>> @@ -1510,15 +1510,12 @@ static int cdns_uart_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) >>>>> >>>>> /* At this point, we've got an empty uart_port struct, initialize it */ >>>>> spin_lock_init(&port->lock); >>>>> - port->membase = NULL; >>>>> - port->irq = 0; >>>>> port->type = PORT_UNKNOWN; >>>>> port->iotype = UPIO_MEM32; >>>>> port->flags = UPF_BOOT_AUTOCONF; >>>>> port->ops = &cdns_uart_ops; >>>>> port->fifosize = CDNS_UART_FIFO_SIZE; >>>>> port->line = id; >>>>> - port->dev = NULL; >>>>> >>>>> /* >>>>> * Register the port. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Alan, Rob, Greg: Any comment about this RFC? >>> >>> I rarely review RFC patchesets as obviously you don't think it is good >>> enough to be submitted "for real" :) >> >> There is one missing minor part but I want to review concept first >> because I didn't find any driver which is using this style. >> >>> If you think this is all good, great, please resend it without the RFC >>> and it will end up in my queue. >> >> I will definitely do it but please look at the concept itself because I >> would like to use this with at least 3 other drivers. > > I don't have the time right now to review "concepts", sorry. Ok. I will revup that missing part to get it review to be able to use it. Thanks, Michal
diff --git a/drivers/tty/serial/xilinx_uartps.c b/drivers/tty/serial/xilinx_uartps.c index 8a3e34234e98..5f116f3ecd4a 100644 --- a/drivers/tty/serial/xilinx_uartps.c +++ b/drivers/tty/serial/xilinx_uartps.c @@ -1510,15 +1510,12 @@ static int cdns_uart_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) /* At this point, we've got an empty uart_port struct, initialize it */ spin_lock_init(&port->lock); - port->membase = NULL; - port->irq = 0; port->type = PORT_UNKNOWN; port->iotype = UPIO_MEM32; port->flags = UPF_BOOT_AUTOCONF; port->ops = &cdns_uart_ops; port->fifosize = CDNS_UART_FIFO_SIZE; port->line = id; - port->dev = NULL; /* * Register the port.
Writing zero and NULLs to already initialized fields is not needed. Remove this additional writes. Signed-off-by: Michal Simek <michal.simek@xilinx.com> --- Changes in v2: - new patch - it can be sent separately too drivers/tty/serial/xilinx_uartps.c | 3 --- 1 file changed, 3 deletions(-)