@@ -426,24 +426,16 @@ static void i2c_acpi_find_adapter(struct intel_dsi *intel_dsi,
const u16 slave_addr)
{
struct drm_device *drm_dev = intel_dsi->base.base.dev;
- struct device *dev = drm_dev->dev;
- struct acpi_device *acpi_dev;
- struct list_head resource_list;
- struct i2c_adapter_lookup lookup;
-
- acpi_dev = ACPI_COMPANION(dev);
- if (acpi_dev) {
- memset(&lookup, 0, sizeof(lookup));
- lookup.slave_addr = slave_addr;
- lookup.intel_dsi = intel_dsi;
- lookup.dev_handle = acpi_device_handle(acpi_dev);
-
- INIT_LIST_HEAD(&resource_list);
- acpi_dev_get_resources(acpi_dev, &resource_list,
- i2c_adapter_lookup,
- &lookup);
- acpi_dev_free_resource_list(&resource_list);
- }
+ struct acpi_device *adev = ACPI_COMPANION(drm_dev->dev);
+ struct i2c_adapter_lookup lookup = {
+ .slave_addr = slave_addr,
+ .intel_dsi = intel_dsi,
+ .dev_handle = acpi_device_handle(adev),
+ };
+ LIST_HEAD(resource_list);
+
+ acpi_dev_get_resources(adev, &resource_list, i2c_adapter_lookup, &lookup);
+ acpi_dev_free_resource_list(&resource_list);
}
#else
static inline void i2c_acpi_find_adapter(struct intel_dsi *intel_dsi,
acpi_dev_get_resources() does perform the NULL pointer check against ACPI companion device which is given as function parameter. Thus, there is no need to duplicate this check in the caller. Signed-off-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> --- v2: used LIST_HEAD() (Ville), initialized lookup directly on stack (Ville) drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_dsi_vbt.c | 28 +++++++------------- 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)