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.si...@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" :) If you think this is all good, great, please resend it without the RFC and it will end up in my queue. thanks, greg k-h
