On 2/4/25 7:30 PM, Paul Barker wrote:
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
I'll be wrapping these two patches into the larger bb_miiphy series and
send V2 then.
