On 27.6.2018 12:09, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 10:09:05AM +0200, Michal Simek wrote: >> On 6.6.2018 14:41, Michal Simek wrote: >>> Writing zero and NULLs to already initialized fields is not needed. >>> Remove this additional writes. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Michal Simek <michal.si...@xilinx.com> >>> --- >>> >>> Changes in v2: >>> - new patch - it can be sent separately too >>> >>> drivers/tty/serial/xilinx_uartps.c | 3 --- >>> 1 file changed, 3 deletions(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/drivers/tty/serial/xilinx_uartps.c >>> b/drivers/tty/serial/xilinx_uartps.c >>> index 8a3e34234e98..5f116f3ecd4a 100644 >>> --- a/drivers/tty/serial/xilinx_uartps.c >>> +++ b/drivers/tty/serial/xilinx_uartps.c >>> @@ -1510,15 +1510,12 @@ static int cdns_uart_probe(struct platform_device >>> *pdev) >>> >>> /* At this point, we've got an empty uart_port struct, initialize it */ >>> spin_lock_init(&port->lock); >>> - port->membase = NULL; >>> - port->irq = 0; >>> port->type = PORT_UNKNOWN; >>> port->iotype = UPIO_MEM32; >>> port->flags = UPF_BOOT_AUTOCONF; >>> port->ops = &cdns_uart_ops; >>> port->fifosize = CDNS_UART_FIFO_SIZE; >>> port->line = id; >>> - port->dev = NULL; >>> >>> /* >>> * Register the port. >>> >> >> Alan, Rob, Greg: Any comment about this RFC? > > I rarely review RFC patchesets as obviously you don't think it is good > enough to be submitted "for real" :)
There is one missing minor part but I want to review concept first because I didn't find any driver which is using this style. > If you think this is all good, great, please resend it without the RFC > and it will end up in my queue. I will definitely do it but please look at the concept itself because I would like to use this with at least 3 other drivers. Thanks, Michal
