On Thu, 2020-11-19 at 17:16 +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > On Thu, Nov 19, 2020 at 4:09 PM Alexandru Ardelean > <ardeleana...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Hey, > > > > So, I stumbled on a new check that could be added to checkpatch. > > Since it's in Perl, I'm reluctant to try it. > > > > Seems many drivers got to a point where they now call (let's say) > > spi_set_drvdata(), but never access that information via > > spi_get_drvdata(). > > Reasons for this seem to be: > > 1. They got converted to device-managed functions and there is no > > longer a remove hook to require the _get_drvdata() access > > 2. They look like they were copied from a driver that had a > > _set_drvdata() and when the code got finalized, the _set_drvdata() was > > omitted > > > > There are a few false positives that I can notice at a quick look, > > like the data being set via some xxx_set_drvdata() and retrieved via a > > dev_get_drvdata(). > > I can say quite a few. And this makes a difference. > So, basically all drivers that are using PM callbacks would rather use > dev_get_drvdata() rather than bus specific. > > > I think checkpatch reporting these as well would be acceptable simply > > from a reviewability perspective. > > > > I did a shell script to quickly check these. See below. > > It's pretty badly written but it is enough for me to gather a list. > > And I wrote it in 5 minutes :P > > I initially noticed this in some IIO drivers, and then I suspected > > that this may be more widespread. > > It seems more suitable for coccinelle.
To me as well.
