On Fri, Mar 19, 2021 at 1:46 PM Ahmad Fatoum <a.fat...@pengutronix.de> wrote: > On 19.03.21 12:13, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > On Fri, Mar 19, 2021 at 1:05 PM Ahmad Fatoum <a.fat...@pengutronix.de> > > wrote: > >> > >> We now have three places within the same file doing the same operation > >> of freeing this pointer and setting it anew. A helper make this > > > > makes > > > >> arguably easier to read, so add one. > > > > FWIW, > > Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevche...@gmail.com> > > Thanks will add for v3. > > > Now I'm wondering why deferred_probe_reason is not defined with const. > > > > Can you check and maybe squeeze a patch in the middle (before these > > two of this series) to move to const? > > The deferred_probe_reason is only used in this file and it either holds > NULL or a pointer to a dynamically allocated string. I don't see a reason > why the member should be const.
But we want to be reliant on the contents of the string, right? I would put this why it shouldn't be const. As far as I understand the strictness here is for good. -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
