On Wed, Jul 27, 2022 at 12:42 PM Potin Lai <potin.lai.pt@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 7/27/22 18:00, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 27, 2022 at 8:46 AM Potin Lai <potin.lai.pt@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
...
> >> + data = device_get_match_data(&client->dev);
> >> + if (data) {
> > This check is redundant. Too much protective programming. Just oblige
> > that matched ID has to always have an associated data.
> Is it guaranteed that device_get_match_data will not return NULL? I find some examples in other drivers, all of them have a check on returned data.
No, but as I said you may guarantee that by obliging developers not to
shoot in their feet.
> Will it be more appropriate if I move device_get_match_data to probe function, and return EINVAL when we get a NULL pointer from device_get_match_data?
Why is this check needed? We do not like dead code.
> >> + if (!data->support_mfr_check)
> >> + return true;
> >> + }
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
