On Tue, Apr 26, 2022 at 07:35:29AM +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> Even if chip is expected not to be NULL, a sanity check costs nothing.
> As already said, this should be reviewed in the context of the callback
> change.
>
> Even then, the change should rather be:
>
> if (!chip) {
> dev_err(dev, "Could not get client data at remove\n");
> return;
> }
If it can't happen by design it should be deleted entirely, or be
turned into a WARN_ON:
if (WARN_ON(!chip))
return;
But I find this largely unnecessary as a null chip will reliably oops
later on in the same function.
Jason
