Re: [RFC PATCH v2 1/6] serial: uartps: Do not initialize field to zero again

[Michal Simek <michal.simek@xilinx.com>]

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.simek@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