Re: [PATCH V2 3/3] net: ethernet: ti: Remove IS_ERR_OR_NULL checks for knav_dma_open_channel

[Jacob Keller <jacob.e.keller@intel.com>]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1736 bytes --]



On 10/1/2025 9:58 AM, Nishanth Menon wrote:
> On 16:58-20251001, Simon Horman wrote:
>> On Wed, Oct 01, 2025 at 05:54:16AM -0500, Nishanth Menon wrote:
>>> On 16:59-20250930, Jacob Keller wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 9/30/2025 5:16 AM, Nishanth Menon wrote:
>>>>> knav_dma_open_channel now only returns NULL on failure instead of error
>>>>> pointers. Replace IS_ERR_OR_NULL checks with simple NULL checks.
>>>>>
>>>>> Suggested-by: Simon Horman <horms@kernel.org>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Nishanth Menon <nm@ti.com>
>>>>> ---
>>>>> Changes in V2:
>>>>> * renewed version
>>>>> * Dropped the fixes since code refactoring was involved.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Whats the justification for splitting this apart from patch 1 of 3?
>>>>
>>>> It seems like we ought to just do all this in a single patch. I don't
>>>> see the value in splitting this apart into 3 patches, unless someone
>>>> else on the list thinks it is valuable.
>>>
>>> The only reason I have done that is to ensure the patches are
>>> bisectable. at patch #1, we are still returning -EINVAL, the driver
>>> should still function when we switch the return over to NULL.
>>
>> Maybe we can simplify things and squash all three patches into one.
>> They seem inter-related.
> 
> I have no issues as the SoC driver maintainer.. just need direction on
> logistics: I will need either the network maintainers to agree to take
> it in OR with their ack, I can queue it up.
> 

I think it makes the most sense to squash everything together into one
patch.

The change looks small enough to me that I don't think it would cause
much conflict regardless of which tree it goes through. Hopefully one of
the maintainers can chime in their opinion here?

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 236 bytes --]