On 25/01/2025 12:34, Marek Vasut wrote:
> On 1/21/25 1:15 PM, Marek Vasut wrote:
>> On 1/21/25 1:07 PM, Paul Barker wrote:
>>> On 18/01/2025 06:34, Marek Vasut wrote:
>>>> The init function does nothing, the bb_miiphy_init() already checks
>>>> whether the .init callback is assigned, and if not, skips calling it.
>>>> Remove the empty init function. The entire init callback will be
>>>> removed in follow up patches.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Marek Vasut <marek.vasut+rene...@mailbox.org>
>>>> ---
>>>> Cc: Christian Marangi <ansuels...@gmail.com>
>>>> Cc: Evgeny Bachinin <eabachi...@salutedevices.com>
>>>> Cc: Ilias Apalodimas <ilias.apalodi...@linaro.org>
>>>> Cc: Jerome Forissier <jerome.foriss...@linaro.org>
>>>> Cc: Joe Hershberger <joe.hershber...@ni.com>
>>>> Cc: Mario Six <mario....@gdsys.cc>
>>>> Cc: Michal Simek <michal.si...@amd.com>
>>>> Cc: Nobuhiro Iwamatsu <iwama...@nigauri.org>
>>>> Cc: Paul Barker <paul.barker...@bp.renesas.com>
>>>> Cc: Ramon Fried <rfried....@gmail.com>
>>>> Cc: Simon Glass <s...@chromium.org>
>>>> Cc: Sughosh Ganu <sughosh.g...@linaro.org>
>>>> Cc: Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com>
>>>> Cc: u-boot@lists.denx.de
>>>> ---
>>>> drivers/net/ravb.c | 7 +------
>>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 6 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/net/ravb.c b/drivers/net/ravb.c
>>>> index 7286ad19598..f9c27f0f370 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/net/ravb.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/net/ravb.c
>>>> @@ -560,11 +560,6 @@ static int ravb_remove(struct udevice *dev)
>>>> return 0;
>>>> }
>>>> -static int ravb_bb_init(struct bb_miiphy_bus *bus)
>>>> -{
>>>> - return 0;
>>>> -}
>>>> -
>>>> static int ravb_bb_mdio_active(struct bb_miiphy_bus *bus)
>>>> {
>>>> struct ravb_priv *eth = bus->priv;
>>>> @@ -626,7 +621,7 @@ static int ravb_bb_delay(struct bb_miiphy_bus *bus)
>>>> struct bb_miiphy_bus bb_miiphy_buses[] = {
>>>> {
>>>> .name = "ravb",
>>>> - .init = ravb_bb_init,
>>>> + .init = NULL,
>>>
>>> Do we need to explicitly set this to NULL? The field should be
>>> initialised to zero if we omit it.
>> I don't think it does, this is only a safety assignment until this .init
>> callback gets fully removed in follow up series.
>
> I would like to pick these two patches for the upcoming release, is that
> OK with you ?I am sure the NULL assignment isn't needed. The C11 standard [1], section 6.7.9, paragraph 10 states that for objects with static storage duration, if a field isn't initialized explicitly it will be initialized to NULL/zero. [1]: https://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n1548.pdf Thanks, -- Paul Barker
OpenPGP_0x27F4B3459F002257.asc
Description: OpenPGP public key
OpenPGP_signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
