On 25/01/2025 12:34, Marek Vasut wrote: > On 1/21/25 1:15 PM, Marek Vasut wrote: >> On 1/21/25 1:07 PM, Paul Barker wrote: >>> On 18/01/2025 06:34, Marek Vasut wrote: >>>> The init function does nothing, the bb_miiphy_init() already checks >>>> whether the .init callback is assigned, and if not, skips calling it. >>>> Remove the empty init function. The entire init callback will be >>>> removed in follow up patches. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Marek Vasut <[email protected]> >>>> --- >>>> Cc: Christian Marangi <[email protected]> >>>> Cc: Evgeny Bachinin <[email protected]> >>>> Cc: Ilias Apalodimas <[email protected]> >>>> Cc: Jerome Forissier <[email protected]> >>>> Cc: Joe Hershberger <[email protected]> >>>> Cc: Mario Six <[email protected]> >>>> Cc: Michal Simek <[email protected]> >>>> Cc: Nobuhiro Iwamatsu <[email protected]> >>>> Cc: Paul Barker <[email protected]> >>>> Cc: Ramon Fried <[email protected]> >>>> Cc: Simon Glass <[email protected]> >>>> Cc: Sughosh Ganu <[email protected]> >>>> Cc: Tom Rini <[email protected]> >>>> Cc: [email protected] >>>> --- >>>> drivers/net/ravb.c | 7 +------ >>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 6 deletions(-) >>>> >>>> diff --git a/drivers/net/ravb.c b/drivers/net/ravb.c >>>> index 7286ad19598..f9c27f0f370 100644 >>>> --- a/drivers/net/ravb.c >>>> +++ b/drivers/net/ravb.c >>>> @@ -560,11 +560,6 @@ static int ravb_remove(struct udevice *dev) >>>> return 0; >>>> } >>>> -static int ravb_bb_init(struct bb_miiphy_bus *bus) >>>> -{ >>>> - return 0; >>>> -} >>>> - >>>> static int ravb_bb_mdio_active(struct bb_miiphy_bus *bus) >>>> { >>>> struct ravb_priv *eth = bus->priv; >>>> @@ -626,7 +621,7 @@ static int ravb_bb_delay(struct bb_miiphy_bus *bus) >>>> struct bb_miiphy_bus bb_miiphy_buses[] = { >>>> { >>>> .name = "ravb", >>>> - .init = ravb_bb_init, >>>> + .init = NULL, >>> >>> Do we need to explicitly set this to NULL? The field should be >>> initialised to zero if we omit it. >> I don't think it does, this is only a safety assignment until this .init >> callback gets fully removed in follow up series. > > I would like to pick these two patches for the upcoming release, is that > OK with you ?
I am sure the NULL assignment isn't needed. The C11 standard [1], section 6.7.9, paragraph 10 states that for objects with static storage duration, if a field isn't initialized explicitly it will be initialized to NULL/zero. [1]: https://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n1548.pdf Thanks, -- Paul Barker
OpenPGP_0x27F4B3459F002257.asc
Description: OpenPGP public key
OpenPGP_signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
