On Mon, Jul 10, 2023 at 06:16:22PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 10, 2023 at 06:49:22PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > Seems by unknown reason, probably some kind of mis-rebase,
> > the commit 0c79378c0199 ("spi: add ancillary device support")
> > adds a dozen of duplicating lines of code. Drop them.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > drivers/spi/spi.c | 11 -----------
> > 1 file changed, 11 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/spi/spi.c b/drivers/spi/spi.c
> > index c99ee4164f11..46cbda383228 100644
> > --- a/drivers/spi/spi.c
> > +++ b/drivers/spi/spi.c
> > @@ -712,17 +712,6 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(spi_add_device);
> > static int spi_add_device_locked(struct spi_device *spi)
> > {
> > struct spi_controller *ctlr = spi->controller;
> > - struct device *dev = ctlr->dev.parent;
> > -
> > - /* Chipselects are numbered 0..max; validate. */
> > - if (spi_get_chipselect(spi, 0) >= ctlr->num_chipselect) {
> > - dev_err(dev, "cs%d >= max %d\n", spi_get_chipselect(spi, 0),
> > - ctlr->num_chipselect);
> > - return -EINVAL;
> > - }
> > -
> > - /* Set the bus ID string */
> > - spi_dev_set_name(spi);
>
> I see that this is duplicating spi_add_device() (and we really could do
> better with code sharing there I think) but I can't immediately see
> where the duplication that's intended to be elimiated is here - where
> else in the one call path that spi_add_device_locked() has would we do
> the above? Based on the changelog I was expecting to see some
> duplicated code in the function itself.
Oh, by some reason Sebastian wasn't in this rather long Cc list.
Added him.
Reading again I don't see any useful explanation why that piece of code has to
be duplicated among these two functions. It's 100% a copy.
Sebastian, can you shed some light here?
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
