On 2018-08-29 20:42, Rob Herring wrote: > On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 1:03 PM Peter Rosin <peda@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> On 2018-08-28 03:52, Rob Herring wrote: >>> In preparation to remove the node name pointer from struct device_node, >>> convert printf users to use the %pOFn format specifier. >>> >>> Cc: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >>> Cc: Paul Mackerras <paulus@xxxxxxxxx> >>> Cc: Michael Ellerman <mpe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >>> Cc: Peter Rosin <peda@xxxxxxxxxx> >>> Cc: linux-i2c@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >>> Cc: linuxppc-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >>> Signed-off-by: Rob Herring <robh@xxxxxxxxxx> >>> --- >>> drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-powermac.c | 15 ++++++++------- >>> drivers/i2c/muxes/i2c-mux-gpmux.c | 4 ++-- >>> 2 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-powermac.c b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-powermac.c >>> index f2a2067525ef..b706fd136ca5 100644 >>> --- a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-powermac.c >>> +++ b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-powermac.c >>> @@ -390,7 +390,6 @@ static int i2c_powermac_probe(struct platform_device *dev) >>> struct pmac_i2c_bus *bus = dev_get_platdata(&dev->dev); >>> struct device_node *parent = NULL; >> >> Lose the initializer... > > That's pretty much unrelated though. I disagree. If you remove the need for the initializer, it's very much related to also remove the initializer. > I'd have to write "Also, remove > the unnecessary parent pointer init" in the commit message and we all > know "Also" is a clue for belongs in a separate patch. How about: "This makes the parent pointer initializer redundant, lose it." See, no "Also" in there, and no separate patch needed. Or don't mention it at all. Cheers, Peter
