lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Oct]   [2]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
Patch in this message
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] pwm: pwm-imx27: Use 'dev' instead of dereferencing it repeatedly
On Tue, Sep 24, 2019 at 09:46:20AM +0000, David Laight wrote:
> From: Anson Huang
> > Sent: 24 September 2019 10:00
> > Add helper variable dev = &pdev->dev to simply the code.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Anson Huang <Anson.Huang@nxp.com>
> > ---
> > drivers/pwm/pwm-imx27.c | 13 +++++++------
> > 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/pwm/pwm-imx27.c b/drivers/pwm/pwm-imx27.c
> > index 434a351..3afee29 100644
> > --- a/drivers/pwm/pwm-imx27.c
> > +++ b/drivers/pwm/pwm-imx27.c
> > @@ -290,27 +290,28 @@ MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, pwm_imx27_dt_ids);
> >
> > static int pwm_imx27_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> > {
> > + struct device *dev = &pdev->dev;
> > struct pwm_imx27_chip *imx;
> >
> > - imx = devm_kzalloc(&pdev->dev, sizeof(*imx), GFP_KERNEL);
> > + imx = devm_kzalloc(dev, sizeof(*imx), GFP_KERNEL);
> > if (imx == NULL)
> > return -ENOMEM;
> >
> > platform_set_drvdata(pdev, imx);
> >
> > - imx->clk_ipg = devm_clk_get(&pdev->dev, "ipg");
> > + imx->clk_ipg = devm_clk_get(dev, "ipg");
> > if (IS_ERR(imx->clk_ipg)) {
> > - dev_err(&pdev->dev, "getting ipg clock failed with %ld\n",
> > + dev_err(dev, "getting ipg clock failed with %ld\n",
> > PTR_ERR(imx->clk_ipg));
> > return PTR_ERR(imx->clk_ipg);
> > }
> >
> > - imx->clk_per = devm_clk_get(&pdev->dev, "per");
> > + imx->clk_per = devm_clk_get(dev, "per");
> > if (IS_ERR(imx->clk_per)) {
> > int ret = PTR_ERR(imx->clk_per);
> >
> > if (ret != -EPROBE_DEFER)
> > - dev_err(&pdev->dev,
> > + dev_err(dev,
> > "failed to get peripheral clock: %d\n",
> > ret);
>
> Hopefully the compiler will optimise this back otherwise you've added another
> local variable which may cause spilling to stack.

I wonder that in reply to this comment nobody actually tried. I just did
that and applying the patch doesn't change the resulting binary. (Tested
with gcc 7.3.1).

> For a setup function it probably doesn't matter, but in general it might
> have a small negative performance impact.
>
> In any case this doesn't shorten any lines enough to remove line-wrap
> and using &pdev->dev is really one less variable to mentally track
> when reading the code.

On the other hand having a variable named "dev" is so usual that I
personally slightly prefer using it instead of &pdev->dev. So I think
(given there is no effect on the compiled result) this is really just
about personal taste and so to actually switch from one preference to
the other needs a better justification IMHO.

Best regards
Uwe

--
Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-König |
Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ |

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-10-02 09:34    [W:0.088 / U:20.572 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site