Hi Laurent,
On 10/19/2016 7:03 PM, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
Hi Jitendra,
On Wednesday 19 Oct 2016 18:37:38 Sharma, Jitendra wrote:
On 10/19/2016 5:21 PM, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
On Wednesday 19 Oct 2016 17:12:48 Jitendra Sharma wrote:
Remove redundant condition check
Remove not necessary if-else block for checking DT entry because else
part will never be picked as in absence of device node, probe will
fail in initial stage only.
Remove unused id->driver_data entries
As id->driver_data is not used in driver source. So no need in
Keeping these entries in id_table
Signed-off-by: Jitendra Sharma <shajit@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
Probe was not happening in Patch v1 due to removal of .id_table.As the
intention of this patch is not to change any functionality, also
changes looks simple enough.So, didn't verified Patch v1 over hardware
You should *ALWAYS* verify patches before sending them out.
Will keep in mind
I assume you've now properly tested this one ?
Hence fixing the issues in Patch v1 and posting patch v2
Changes for v2:
- Keep the id_table entries
- Keep the id->driver_data to 0
---
drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/adv7511/adv7511_drv.c | 13 +++++--------
1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/adv7511/adv7511_drv.c
b/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/adv7511/adv7511_drv.c index 8ed3906..3279059
100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/adv7511/adv7511_drv.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/adv7511/adv7511_drv.c
@@ -942,10 +942,7 @@ static int adv7511_probe(struct i2c_client *i2c,
const
struct i2c_device_id *id) adv7511->powered = false;
adv7511->status = connector_status_disconnected;
- if (dev->of_node)
- adv7511->type = (enum
adv7511_type)of_device_get_match_data(dev);
- else
- adv7511->type = id->driver_data;
+ adv7511->type = (enum adv7511_type)of_device_get_match_data(dev);
memset(&link_config, 0, sizeof(link_config));
@@ -1066,11 +1063,11 @@ static int adv7511_remove(struct i2c_client *i2c)
}
static const struct i2c_device_id adv7511_i2c_ids[] = {
- { "adv7511", ADV7511 },
- { "adv7511w", ADV7511 },
- { "adv7513", ADV7511 },
+ { "adv7511", 0 },
+ { "adv7511w", 0 },
+ { "adv7513", 0 },
#ifdef CONFIG_DRM_I2C_ADV7533
- { "adv7533", ADV7533 },
+ { "adv7533", 0 },
#endif
What's the purpose of this ? It doesn't save any memory or CPU cycle.
Idea is to remove unnecessary code, variables and if possible to reduce
lines of code for example here by eliminating obvious branching.
Regarding memory or cpu cyles, no difference could be because of
compiler optimization
For the code block in the probe function I understand, but for the
initializers here I don't see the point.
And one might argue that using id->driver_data unconditionally would be better
as it would save a call to of_device_get_match_data()...
Agreed.
So, there could be two ways round either use id->driver_data
unconditionally or use of_device_get_match_data().
IMO it would be better to use id->driver_data unconditionally and save a
call to of_device_get_match_data()
What would you suggest to move ahead?
{ }
};
_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
