Re: [PATCH] ARM: OMAP2: Delete unnecessary checks before three function calls

2015-07-16 Thread Tony Lindgren
* Paul Walmsley  [150716 07:09]:
> On Wed, 15 Jul 2015, Tony Lindgren wrote:
> 
> > * Paul Walmsley  [150715 22:58]:
> > > Hello Markus
> > > 
> > > On Tue, 30 Jun 2015, SF Markus Elfring wrote:
> > > 
> > > > From: Markus Elfring 
> > > > Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2015 14:00:16 +0200
> > > > 
> > > > The functions clk_disable(), of_node_put() and omap_device_delete() test
> > > > whether their argument is NULL and then return immediately.
> > > > Thus the test around the call is not needed.
> > > > 
> > > > This issue was detected by using the Coccinelle software.
> > > > 
> > > > Signed-off-by: Markus Elfring 
> > > 
> > > Thanks for the patch.  I have to say, I am a bit leery about applying the 
> > > omap_device.c and omap_hwmod.c changes, since the called functions -- 
> > > omap_device_delete() and clk_disable() -- don't explicitly document that 
> > > NULLs are allowed to be passed in.  So there's no explicit contract that 
> > > callers can rely upon, to (at least in theory) prevent those internal 
> > > NULL 
> > > pointer checks from being removed.
> > > 
> > > So I would suggest that those two functions' kerneldoc be patched first 
> > > to 
> > > explicitly state that passing in a NULL pointer is allowed.  Then I would 
> > > feel a bit more comfortable applying the omap_device.c and omap_hwmod.c 
> > > changes.
> > > 
> > > The kerneldoc for of_node_put() does explicitly allow NULLs to be passed 
> > > in.  So I'll apply that change now for v4.3, touching up the commit 
> > > message accordingly.
> > 
> > I have them applied from a later thread already, but will drop both in
> > my branch as I have not pushed them out yet.
> 
> Oops sorry about stepping on your toes - I obviously missed that followup.

No problem :)

Tony
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/


Re: [PATCH] ARM: OMAP2: Delete unnecessary checks before three function calls

2015-07-16 Thread Paul Walmsley
On Wed, 15 Jul 2015, Tony Lindgren wrote:

> * Paul Walmsley  [150715 22:58]:
> > Hello Markus
> > 
> > On Tue, 30 Jun 2015, SF Markus Elfring wrote:
> > 
> > > From: Markus Elfring 
> > > Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2015 14:00:16 +0200
> > > 
> > > The functions clk_disable(), of_node_put() and omap_device_delete() test
> > > whether their argument is NULL and then return immediately.
> > > Thus the test around the call is not needed.
> > > 
> > > This issue was detected by using the Coccinelle software.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Markus Elfring 
> > 
> > Thanks for the patch.  I have to say, I am a bit leery about applying the 
> > omap_device.c and omap_hwmod.c changes, since the called functions -- 
> > omap_device_delete() and clk_disable() -- don't explicitly document that 
> > NULLs are allowed to be passed in.  So there's no explicit contract that 
> > callers can rely upon, to (at least in theory) prevent those internal NULL 
> > pointer checks from being removed.
> > 
> > So I would suggest that those two functions' kerneldoc be patched first to 
> > explicitly state that passing in a NULL pointer is allowed.  Then I would 
> > feel a bit more comfortable applying the omap_device.c and omap_hwmod.c 
> > changes.
> > 
> > The kerneldoc for of_node_put() does explicitly allow NULLs to be passed 
> > in.  So I'll apply that change now for v4.3, touching up the commit 
> > message accordingly.
> 
> I have them applied from a later thread already, but will drop both in
> my branch as I have not pushed them out yet.

Oops sorry about stepping on your toes - I obviously missed that followup.

- Paul
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/


Re: ARM: OMAP2: Delete unnecessary checks before three function calls

2015-07-16 Thread SF Markus Elfring
> I have to say, I am a bit leery about applying the omap_device.c and
> omap_hwmod.c changes, since the called functions -- omap_device_delete()
> and clk_disable() -- don't explicitly document that NULLs are allowed
> to be passed in.

How are the chances to improve documentation around such implementation details?


> So there's no explicit contract that callers can rely upon, to (at least
> in theory) prevent those internal NULL pointer checks from being removed.

Are there any additional variations to consider for source files from different
processor architectures?


> So I would suggest that those two functions' kerneldoc be patched first to 
> explicitly state that passing in a NULL pointer is allowed.

Should my static source code analysis approach help you any more to clarify
further open issues?


> So I'll apply that change now for v4.3, touching up the commit message 
> accordingly.

Thanks for your constructive feedback.


>>  arch/arm/mach-omap2/omap_device.c | 3 +--
>>  arch/arm/mach-omap2/omap_hwmod.c  | 5 +
>>  arch/arm/mach-omap2/timer.c   | 3 +--

Did Tony Lindgren pick a similar update suggestion up, too?
https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/7/15/112

Regards,
Markus
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/


Re: [PATCH] ARM: OMAP2: Delete unnecessary checks before three function calls

2015-07-16 Thread Tony Lindgren
* Paul Walmsley  [150715 22:58]:
> Hello Markus
> 
> On Tue, 30 Jun 2015, SF Markus Elfring wrote:
> 
> > From: Markus Elfring 
> > Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2015 14:00:16 +0200
> > 
> > The functions clk_disable(), of_node_put() and omap_device_delete() test
> > whether their argument is NULL and then return immediately.
> > Thus the test around the call is not needed.
> > 
> > This issue was detected by using the Coccinelle software.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Markus Elfring 
> 
> Thanks for the patch.  I have to say, I am a bit leery about applying the 
> omap_device.c and omap_hwmod.c changes, since the called functions -- 
> omap_device_delete() and clk_disable() -- don't explicitly document that 
> NULLs are allowed to be passed in.  So there's no explicit contract that 
> callers can rely upon, to (at least in theory) prevent those internal NULL 
> pointer checks from being removed.
> 
> So I would suggest that those two functions' kerneldoc be patched first to 
> explicitly state that passing in a NULL pointer is allowed.  Then I would 
> feel a bit more comfortable applying the omap_device.c and omap_hwmod.c 
> changes.
> 
> The kerneldoc for of_node_put() does explicitly allow NULLs to be passed 
> in.  So I'll apply that change now for v4.3, touching up the commit 
> message accordingly.

I have them applied from a later thread already, but will drop both in
my branch as I have not pushed them out yet.

Regards,

Tony
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/


Re: ARM: OMAP2: Delete unnecessary checks before three function calls

2015-07-16 Thread SF Markus Elfring
 I have to say, I am a bit leery about applying the omap_device.c and
 omap_hwmod.c changes, since the called functions -- omap_device_delete()
 and clk_disable() -- don't explicitly document that NULLs are allowed
 to be passed in.

How are the chances to improve documentation around such implementation details?


 So there's no explicit contract that callers can rely upon, to (at least
 in theory) prevent those internal NULL pointer checks from being removed.

Are there any additional variations to consider for source files from different
processor architectures?


 So I would suggest that those two functions' kerneldoc be patched first to 
 explicitly state that passing in a NULL pointer is allowed.

Should my static source code analysis approach help you any more to clarify
further open issues?


 So I'll apply that change now for v4.3, touching up the commit message 
 accordingly.

Thanks for your constructive feedback.


  arch/arm/mach-omap2/omap_device.c | 3 +--
  arch/arm/mach-omap2/omap_hwmod.c  | 5 +
  arch/arm/mach-omap2/timer.c   | 3 +--

Did Tony Lindgren pick a similar update suggestion up, too?
https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/7/15/112

Regards,
Markus
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/


Re: [PATCH] ARM: OMAP2: Delete unnecessary checks before three function calls

2015-07-16 Thread Tony Lindgren
* Paul Walmsley p...@pwsan.com [150715 22:58]:
 Hello Markus
 
 On Tue, 30 Jun 2015, SF Markus Elfring wrote:
 
  From: Markus Elfring elfr...@users.sourceforge.net
  Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2015 14:00:16 +0200
  
  The functions clk_disable(), of_node_put() and omap_device_delete() test
  whether their argument is NULL and then return immediately.
  Thus the test around the call is not needed.
  
  This issue was detected by using the Coccinelle software.
  
  Signed-off-by: Markus Elfring elfr...@users.sourceforge.net
 
 Thanks for the patch.  I have to say, I am a bit leery about applying the 
 omap_device.c and omap_hwmod.c changes, since the called functions -- 
 omap_device_delete() and clk_disable() -- don't explicitly document that 
 NULLs are allowed to be passed in.  So there's no explicit contract that 
 callers can rely upon, to (at least in theory) prevent those internal NULL 
 pointer checks from being removed.
 
 So I would suggest that those two functions' kerneldoc be patched first to 
 explicitly state that passing in a NULL pointer is allowed.  Then I would 
 feel a bit more comfortable applying the omap_device.c and omap_hwmod.c 
 changes.
 
 The kerneldoc for of_node_put() does explicitly allow NULLs to be passed 
 in.  So I'll apply that change now for v4.3, touching up the commit 
 message accordingly.

I have them applied from a later thread already, but will drop both in
my branch as I have not pushed them out yet.

Regards,

Tony
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/


Re: [PATCH] ARM: OMAP2: Delete unnecessary checks before three function calls

2015-07-16 Thread Paul Walmsley
On Wed, 15 Jul 2015, Tony Lindgren wrote:

 * Paul Walmsley p...@pwsan.com [150715 22:58]:
  Hello Markus
  
  On Tue, 30 Jun 2015, SF Markus Elfring wrote:
  
   From: Markus Elfring elfr...@users.sourceforge.net
   Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2015 14:00:16 +0200
   
   The functions clk_disable(), of_node_put() and omap_device_delete() test
   whether their argument is NULL and then return immediately.
   Thus the test around the call is not needed.
   
   This issue was detected by using the Coccinelle software.
   
   Signed-off-by: Markus Elfring elfr...@users.sourceforge.net
  
  Thanks for the patch.  I have to say, I am a bit leery about applying the 
  omap_device.c and omap_hwmod.c changes, since the called functions -- 
  omap_device_delete() and clk_disable() -- don't explicitly document that 
  NULLs are allowed to be passed in.  So there's no explicit contract that 
  callers can rely upon, to (at least in theory) prevent those internal NULL 
  pointer checks from being removed.
  
  So I would suggest that those two functions' kerneldoc be patched first to 
  explicitly state that passing in a NULL pointer is allowed.  Then I would 
  feel a bit more comfortable applying the omap_device.c and omap_hwmod.c 
  changes.
  
  The kerneldoc for of_node_put() does explicitly allow NULLs to be passed 
  in.  So I'll apply that change now for v4.3, touching up the commit 
  message accordingly.
 
 I have them applied from a later thread already, but will drop both in
 my branch as I have not pushed them out yet.

Oops sorry about stepping on your toes - I obviously missed that followup.

- Paul
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/


Re: [PATCH] ARM: OMAP2: Delete unnecessary checks before three function calls

2015-07-16 Thread Tony Lindgren
* Paul Walmsley p...@pwsan.com [150716 07:09]:
 On Wed, 15 Jul 2015, Tony Lindgren wrote:
 
  * Paul Walmsley p...@pwsan.com [150715 22:58]:
   Hello Markus
   
   On Tue, 30 Jun 2015, SF Markus Elfring wrote:
   
From: Markus Elfring elfr...@users.sourceforge.net
Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2015 14:00:16 +0200

The functions clk_disable(), of_node_put() and omap_device_delete() test
whether their argument is NULL and then return immediately.
Thus the test around the call is not needed.

This issue was detected by using the Coccinelle software.

Signed-off-by: Markus Elfring elfr...@users.sourceforge.net
   
   Thanks for the patch.  I have to say, I am a bit leery about applying the 
   omap_device.c and omap_hwmod.c changes, since the called functions -- 
   omap_device_delete() and clk_disable() -- don't explicitly document that 
   NULLs are allowed to be passed in.  So there's no explicit contract that 
   callers can rely upon, to (at least in theory) prevent those internal 
   NULL 
   pointer checks from being removed.
   
   So I would suggest that those two functions' kerneldoc be patched first 
   to 
   explicitly state that passing in a NULL pointer is allowed.  Then I would 
   feel a bit more comfortable applying the omap_device.c and omap_hwmod.c 
   changes.
   
   The kerneldoc for of_node_put() does explicitly allow NULLs to be passed 
   in.  So I'll apply that change now for v4.3, touching up the commit 
   message accordingly.
  
  I have them applied from a later thread already, but will drop both in
  my branch as I have not pushed them out yet.
 
 Oops sorry about stepping on your toes - I obviously missed that followup.

No problem :)

Tony
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/


Re: [PATCH] ARM: OMAP2: Delete unnecessary checks before three function calls

2015-07-15 Thread Paul Walmsley
Hello Markus

On Tue, 30 Jun 2015, SF Markus Elfring wrote:

> From: Markus Elfring 
> Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2015 14:00:16 +0200
> 
> The functions clk_disable(), of_node_put() and omap_device_delete() test
> whether their argument is NULL and then return immediately.
> Thus the test around the call is not needed.
> 
> This issue was detected by using the Coccinelle software.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Markus Elfring 

Thanks for the patch.  I have to say, I am a bit leery about applying the 
omap_device.c and omap_hwmod.c changes, since the called functions -- 
omap_device_delete() and clk_disable() -- don't explicitly document that 
NULLs are allowed to be passed in.  So there's no explicit contract that 
callers can rely upon, to (at least in theory) prevent those internal NULL 
pointer checks from being removed.

So I would suggest that those two functions' kerneldoc be patched first to 
explicitly state that passing in a NULL pointer is allowed.  Then I would 
feel a bit more comfortable applying the omap_device.c and omap_hwmod.c 
changes.

The kerneldoc for of_node_put() does explicitly allow NULLs to be passed 
in.  So I'll apply that change now for v4.3, touching up the commit 
message accordingly.

regards,

- Paul

> ---
>  arch/arm/mach-omap2/omap_device.c | 3 +--
>  arch/arm/mach-omap2/omap_hwmod.c  | 5 +
>  arch/arm/mach-omap2/timer.c   | 3 +--
>  3 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/omap_device.c 
> b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/omap_device.c
> index 4cb8fd9..196366e 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/omap_device.c
> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/omap_device.c
> @@ -193,8 +193,7 @@ static int _omap_device_notifier_call(struct 
> notifier_block *nb,
>  
>   switch (event) {
>   case BUS_NOTIFY_DEL_DEVICE:
> - if (pdev->archdata.od)
> - omap_device_delete(pdev->archdata.od);
> + omap_device_delete(pdev->archdata.od);
>   break;
>   case BUS_NOTIFY_ADD_DEVICE:
>   if (pdev->dev.of_node)
> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/omap_hwmod.c 
> b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/omap_hwmod.c
> index d78c12e..1091ee7 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/omap_hwmod.c
> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/omap_hwmod.c
> @@ -921,10 +921,7 @@ static int _disable_clocks(struct omap_hwmod *oh)
>   int i = 0;
>  
>   pr_debug("omap_hwmod: %s: disabling clocks\n", oh->name);
> -
> - if (oh->_clk)
> - clk_disable(oh->_clk);
> -
> + clk_disable(oh->_clk);
>   p = oh->slave_ports.next;
>  
>   while (i < oh->slaves_cnt) {
> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/timer.c b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/timer.c
> index cac46d8..15448221 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/timer.c
> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/timer.c
> @@ -208,8 +208,7 @@ static void __init omap_dmtimer_init(void)
>   /* If we are a secure device, remove any secure timer nodes */
>   if ((omap_type() != OMAP2_DEVICE_TYPE_GP)) {
>   np = omap_get_timer_dt(omap_timer_match, "ti,timer-secure");
> - if (np)
> - of_node_put(np);
> + of_node_put(np);
>   }
>  }
>  
> -- 
> 2.4.5
> 


- Paul
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/


Re: [PATCH] ARM: OMAP2: Delete unnecessary checks before three function calls

2015-07-15 Thread Paul Walmsley
Hello Markus

On Tue, 30 Jun 2015, SF Markus Elfring wrote:

 From: Markus Elfring elfr...@users.sourceforge.net
 Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2015 14:00:16 +0200
 
 The functions clk_disable(), of_node_put() and omap_device_delete() test
 whether their argument is NULL and then return immediately.
 Thus the test around the call is not needed.
 
 This issue was detected by using the Coccinelle software.
 
 Signed-off-by: Markus Elfring elfr...@users.sourceforge.net

Thanks for the patch.  I have to say, I am a bit leery about applying the 
omap_device.c and omap_hwmod.c changes, since the called functions -- 
omap_device_delete() and clk_disable() -- don't explicitly document that 
NULLs are allowed to be passed in.  So there's no explicit contract that 
callers can rely upon, to (at least in theory) prevent those internal NULL 
pointer checks from being removed.

So I would suggest that those two functions' kerneldoc be patched first to 
explicitly state that passing in a NULL pointer is allowed.  Then I would 
feel a bit more comfortable applying the omap_device.c and omap_hwmod.c 
changes.

The kerneldoc for of_node_put() does explicitly allow NULLs to be passed 
in.  So I'll apply that change now for v4.3, touching up the commit 
message accordingly.

regards,

- Paul

 ---
  arch/arm/mach-omap2/omap_device.c | 3 +--
  arch/arm/mach-omap2/omap_hwmod.c  | 5 +
  arch/arm/mach-omap2/timer.c   | 3 +--
  3 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
 
 diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/omap_device.c 
 b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/omap_device.c
 index 4cb8fd9..196366e 100644
 --- a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/omap_device.c
 +++ b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/omap_device.c
 @@ -193,8 +193,7 @@ static int _omap_device_notifier_call(struct 
 notifier_block *nb,
  
   switch (event) {
   case BUS_NOTIFY_DEL_DEVICE:
 - if (pdev-archdata.od)
 - omap_device_delete(pdev-archdata.od);
 + omap_device_delete(pdev-archdata.od);
   break;
   case BUS_NOTIFY_ADD_DEVICE:
   if (pdev-dev.of_node)
 diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/omap_hwmod.c 
 b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/omap_hwmod.c
 index d78c12e..1091ee7 100644
 --- a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/omap_hwmod.c
 +++ b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/omap_hwmod.c
 @@ -921,10 +921,7 @@ static int _disable_clocks(struct omap_hwmod *oh)
   int i = 0;
  
   pr_debug(omap_hwmod: %s: disabling clocks\n, oh-name);
 -
 - if (oh-_clk)
 - clk_disable(oh-_clk);
 -
 + clk_disable(oh-_clk);
   p = oh-slave_ports.next;
  
   while (i  oh-slaves_cnt) {
 diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/timer.c b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/timer.c
 index cac46d8..15448221 100644
 --- a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/timer.c
 +++ b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/timer.c
 @@ -208,8 +208,7 @@ static void __init omap_dmtimer_init(void)
   /* If we are a secure device, remove any secure timer nodes */
   if ((omap_type() != OMAP2_DEVICE_TYPE_GP)) {
   np = omap_get_timer_dt(omap_timer_match, ti,timer-secure);
 - if (np)
 - of_node_put(np);
 + of_node_put(np);
   }
  }
  
 -- 
 2.4.5
 


- Paul
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/


[PATCH] ARM: OMAP2: Delete unnecessary checks before three function calls

2015-06-30 Thread SF Markus Elfring
From: Markus Elfring 
Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2015 14:00:16 +0200

The functions clk_disable(), of_node_put() and omap_device_delete() test
whether their argument is NULL and then return immediately.
Thus the test around the call is not needed.

This issue was detected by using the Coccinelle software.

Signed-off-by: Markus Elfring 
---
 arch/arm/mach-omap2/omap_device.c | 3 +--
 arch/arm/mach-omap2/omap_hwmod.c  | 5 +
 arch/arm/mach-omap2/timer.c   | 3 +--
 3 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/omap_device.c 
b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/omap_device.c
index 4cb8fd9..196366e 100644
--- a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/omap_device.c
+++ b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/omap_device.c
@@ -193,8 +193,7 @@ static int _omap_device_notifier_call(struct notifier_block 
*nb,
 
switch (event) {
case BUS_NOTIFY_DEL_DEVICE:
-   if (pdev->archdata.od)
-   omap_device_delete(pdev->archdata.od);
+   omap_device_delete(pdev->archdata.od);
break;
case BUS_NOTIFY_ADD_DEVICE:
if (pdev->dev.of_node)
diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/omap_hwmod.c b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/omap_hwmod.c
index d78c12e..1091ee7 100644
--- a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/omap_hwmod.c
+++ b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/omap_hwmod.c
@@ -921,10 +921,7 @@ static int _disable_clocks(struct omap_hwmod *oh)
int i = 0;
 
pr_debug("omap_hwmod: %s: disabling clocks\n", oh->name);
-
-   if (oh->_clk)
-   clk_disable(oh->_clk);
-
+   clk_disable(oh->_clk);
p = oh->slave_ports.next;
 
while (i < oh->slaves_cnt) {
diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/timer.c b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/timer.c
index cac46d8..15448221 100644
--- a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/timer.c
+++ b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/timer.c
@@ -208,8 +208,7 @@ static void __init omap_dmtimer_init(void)
/* If we are a secure device, remove any secure timer nodes */
if ((omap_type() != OMAP2_DEVICE_TYPE_GP)) {
np = omap_get_timer_dt(omap_timer_match, "ti,timer-secure");
-   if (np)
-   of_node_put(np);
+   of_node_put(np);
}
 }
 
-- 
2.4.5

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/


[PATCH] ARM: OMAP2: Delete unnecessary checks before three function calls

2015-06-30 Thread SF Markus Elfring
From: Markus Elfring elfr...@users.sourceforge.net
Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2015 14:00:16 +0200

The functions clk_disable(), of_node_put() and omap_device_delete() test
whether their argument is NULL and then return immediately.
Thus the test around the call is not needed.

This issue was detected by using the Coccinelle software.

Signed-off-by: Markus Elfring elfr...@users.sourceforge.net
---
 arch/arm/mach-omap2/omap_device.c | 3 +--
 arch/arm/mach-omap2/omap_hwmod.c  | 5 +
 arch/arm/mach-omap2/timer.c   | 3 +--
 3 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/omap_device.c 
b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/omap_device.c
index 4cb8fd9..196366e 100644
--- a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/omap_device.c
+++ b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/omap_device.c
@@ -193,8 +193,7 @@ static int _omap_device_notifier_call(struct notifier_block 
*nb,
 
switch (event) {
case BUS_NOTIFY_DEL_DEVICE:
-   if (pdev-archdata.od)
-   omap_device_delete(pdev-archdata.od);
+   omap_device_delete(pdev-archdata.od);
break;
case BUS_NOTIFY_ADD_DEVICE:
if (pdev-dev.of_node)
diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/omap_hwmod.c b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/omap_hwmod.c
index d78c12e..1091ee7 100644
--- a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/omap_hwmod.c
+++ b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/omap_hwmod.c
@@ -921,10 +921,7 @@ static int _disable_clocks(struct omap_hwmod *oh)
int i = 0;
 
pr_debug(omap_hwmod: %s: disabling clocks\n, oh-name);
-
-   if (oh-_clk)
-   clk_disable(oh-_clk);
-
+   clk_disable(oh-_clk);
p = oh-slave_ports.next;
 
while (i  oh-slaves_cnt) {
diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/timer.c b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/timer.c
index cac46d8..15448221 100644
--- a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/timer.c
+++ b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/timer.c
@@ -208,8 +208,7 @@ static void __init omap_dmtimer_init(void)
/* If we are a secure device, remove any secure timer nodes */
if ((omap_type() != OMAP2_DEVICE_TYPE_GP)) {
np = omap_get_timer_dt(omap_timer_match, ti,timer-secure);
-   if (np)
-   of_node_put(np);
+   of_node_put(np);
}
 }
 
-- 
2.4.5

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/