On Wed, Feb 21, 2024 at 12:01:43PM +0100, Thomas Richard wrote: > On 2/16/24 16:08, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > On Fri, Feb 16, 2024 at 08:59:47AM +0100, Thomas Richard wrote: > >> On 2/15/24 16:27, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > >>> On Thu, Feb 15, 2024 at 04:17:47PM +0100, Thomas Richard wrote: > >>>> No need to check the pointer returned by platform_get_drvdata(), as > >>>> platform_set_drvdata() is called during the probe. > >>> > >>> This patch should go _after_ the next one, otherwise the commit message doesn't > >>> tell full story and the code change bring a potential regression. > >> > >> Hello Andy, > >> > >> I'm ok to move this patch after the next one. > >> But for my understanding, could you explain me why changing the order is > >> important in this case ? > > > > Old PM calls obviously can be called in different circumstances and these > > checks are important. > > > > Just squash these two patches to avoid additional churn and we are done. > > You mean invert the order instead of squash. Either would work, but see how much churn in terms of changing just changed lines it adds. -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
