On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 05:47:06PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 04:10:04PM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 04:38:40PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > > +Cc: Jack Ping, who did internally the same > > > > > > On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 03:26:25PM +0200, Markus Elfring wrote: > > > > From: Markus Elfring <elfr...@users.sourceforge.net> > > > > Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2019 15:15:14 +0200 > > > > > > > > The functions “platform_get_resource_byname” and “devm_ioremap_resource” > > > > are called together in 181 source files. > > > > This implementation detail can be determined also with the help > > > > of the semantic patch language (Coccinelle software). > > > > > > > > Wrap these two calls into another helper function. > > > > Thus a local variable does not need to be declared for a resource > > > > structure pointer before and a redundant argument can be omitted > > > > for the resource type. > > > > > > This one makes sense. > > > Though I'm not sure Greg will see your message. > > > > Nope, didn't see it, don't want to see it, it will only cause more work > > in the longrun... > > > > > Rafael, maybe you can apply this one? > > > > Um, don't go around maintainers please, that's rude. > > I won't do it, how should we proceed if de facto this functionality is good to > have besides the fact of coming new user in the future? > > > There is a reason > > this specific developer is in my blacklist, and perhaps they should be > > in yours as well :) > > Perhaps. > > > I don't like adding new apis with no user. > > Perhaps Jack Ping will send it as a first patch of his series where he > utilizes > this functionality. Would it be acceptable?
Yes, that would be ok. thanks, greg k-h
