The calls rpmh_rsc_write_ctrl_data() and rpmh_rsc_send_data() are only
ever called from rpmh.c. We know that rpmh.c already error checked
the message. There's no reason to do it again in rpmh-rsc.
Suggested-by: Maulik Shah <mkshah@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Douglas Anderson <dianders@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
Changes in v3:
- ("Don't double-check rpmh") replaces ("Warning if tcs_write...")
Changes in v2: None
drivers/soc/qcom/rpmh-rsc.c | 18 +-----------------
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 17 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/soc/qcom/rpmh-rsc.c b/drivers/soc/qcom/rpmh-rsc.c
index 9502e7ea96be..10c026b2e1bc 100644
--- a/drivers/soc/qcom/rpmh-rsc.c
+++ b/drivers/soc/qcom/rpmh-rsc.c
@@ -633,7 +633,7 @@ static int tcs_write(struct rsc_drv *drv, const struct tcs_request *msg)
}
/**
- * rpmh_rsc_send_data() - Validate the incoming message + write to TCS block.
+ * rpmh_rsc_send_data() - Write / trigger active-only message.
* @drv: The controller.
* @msg: The data to be sent.
*
@@ -658,12 +658,6 @@ int rpmh_rsc_send_data(struct rsc_drv *drv, const struct tcs_request *msg)
{
int ret;
- if (!msg || !msg->cmds || !msg->num_cmds ||
- msg->num_cmds > MAX_RPMH_PAYLOAD) {
- WARN_ON(1);
- return -EINVAL;
- }
-
do {
ret = tcs_write(drv, msg);
if (ret == -EBUSY) {
@@ -734,16 +728,6 @@ int rpmh_rsc_write_ctrl_data(struct rsc_drv *drv, const struct tcs_request *msg)
unsigned long flags;
int ret;
- if (!msg || !msg->cmds || !msg->num_cmds ||
- msg->num_cmds > MAX_RPMH_PAYLOAD) {
- pr_err("Payload error\n");
- return -EINVAL;
- }
-
- /* Data sent to this API will not be sent immediately */
- if (msg->state == RPMH_ACTIVE_ONLY_STATE)
- return -EINVAL;
-
tcs = get_tcs_for_msg(drv, msg);
if (IS_ERR(tcs))
return PTR_ERR(tcs);
--
2.26.0.292.g33ef6b2f38-goog
