On Sat, 2 Oct 2010 05:36:27 -0700 "Zang Roy-R61911" <r61...@freescale.com> wrote:
> > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Anton Vorontsov [mailto:cbouatmai...@gmail.com] > > Sent: Monday, September 20, 2010 21:19 PM > > To: Zang Roy-R61911 > > Cc: linux-...@lists.infradead.org; dw...@infradead.org; dedeki...@gmail.com; > > a...@linux-foundation.org; Lan Chunhe-B25806; Wood Scott-B07421; Gala Kumar- > > B11780; linuxppc-...@ozlabs.org > > Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3 v4] P4080/mtd: Only make elbc nand driver detect > > nand > > flash partitions > > > > On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 03:01:08PM +0800, Roy Zang wrote: > > [...] > > > +static struct mutex fsl_elbc_nand_mutex; > > > + > > > +static int __devinit fsl_elbc_nand_probe(struct platform_device *dev) > > > { > > > - struct fsl_lbc_regs __iomem *lbc = ctrl->regs; > > > + struct fsl_lbc_regs __iomem *lbc; > > > struct fsl_elbc_mtd *priv; > > > struct resource res; > > > + struct fsl_elbc_fcm_ctrl *elbc_fcm_ctrl = NULL; > > > > No need for = NULL. > Any harm? Or just personal habit or style? Can you explain about why? Besides not wanting superfluous code on general principle, it could hide a bug if in the future the real initialization is missing on some code path. It would become a runtime NULL dereference rather than a compiler warning. -Scott _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
