On Sun, Nov 10, 2024 at 09:51:04PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > Sun, Nov 10, 2024 at 01:38:39PM -0500, Aren kirjoitti: > > On Mon, Nov 04, 2024 at 10:32:08AM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > > On Sat, Nov 02, 2024 at 03:50:37PM -0400, Aren Moynihan wrote: > > ... > > > > > + ret = devm_add_action_or_reset(&client->dev, > > > > stk3310_set_state_disable, data); > > > > > > Why not simply 'dev' as in below call? > > > > I was trying to avoid refactoring the entire function to replace > > &client->dev with dev, I'll add a patch for that to the next revision. > > I'm not talking about refactoring, I'm talking only about the lines that you > have touched / added.
Ah right, this one makes sense, my comment should have been on the next patch in this series which is a little more complex. For that patch it seemed inconsistent to use dev only in new code and mix it with calls using &client->dev. - Aren
