On Fri, May 14, 2021 at 12:32:26PM +0300, Alexandru Ardelean wrote: > The platform_set_drvdata() call is only useful if we need to retrieve back > the private information. > Since the driver doesn't do that, it's not useful to have it. > > If this is removed, we can also just do a direct return on > devm_gpiochip_add_data(). We don't need to print that this call failed as > there are other ways to log/see this during probe. Pushed to my review and testing queue, thanks! > Signed-off-by: Alexandru Ardelean <aardelean@xxxxxxxxxxx> > --- > drivers/gpio/gpio-crystalcove.c | 10 +--------- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 9 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/gpio/gpio-crystalcove.c b/drivers/gpio/gpio-crystalcove.c > index 2ba225720086..5a909f3c79e8 100644 > --- a/drivers/gpio/gpio-crystalcove.c > +++ b/drivers/gpio/gpio-crystalcove.c > @@ -339,8 +339,6 @@ static int crystalcove_gpio_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) > if (!cg) > return -ENOMEM; > > - platform_set_drvdata(pdev, cg); > - > mutex_init(&cg->buslock); > cg->chip.label = KBUILD_MODNAME; > cg->chip.direction_input = crystalcove_gpio_dir_in; > @@ -372,13 +370,7 @@ static int crystalcove_gpio_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) > return retval; > } > > - retval = devm_gpiochip_add_data(&pdev->dev, &cg->chip, cg); > - if (retval) { > - dev_warn(&pdev->dev, "add gpio chip error: %d\n", retval); > - return retval; > - } > - > - return 0; > + return devm_gpiochip_add_data(&pdev->dev, &cg->chip, cg); > } > > static struct platform_driver crystalcove_gpio_driver = { > -- > 2.31.1 > -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko