On 28.6.2018 01:48, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:

On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 04:19:46PM +0200, Michal Simek wrote:

quoted

On 27.6.2018 12:09, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:

quoted

On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 10:09:05AM +0200, Michal Simek wrote:

quoted

On 6.6.2018 14:41, Michal Simek wrote:

quoted

Writing zero and NULLs to already initialized fields is not needed.
Remove this additional writes.

Signed-off-by: Michal Simek <redacted>
---

Changes in v2:
- new patch - it can be sent separately too

 drivers/tty/serial/xilinx_uartps.c | 3 ---
 1 file changed, 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/tty/serial/xilinx_uartps.c b/drivers/tty/serial/xilinx_uartps.c
index 8a3e34234e98..5f116f3ecd4a 100644
--- a/drivers/tty/serial/xilinx_uartps.c
+++ b/drivers/tty/serial/xilinx_uartps.c

@@ -1510,15 +1510,12 @@ static int cdns_uart_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
 
 	/* At this point, we've got an empty uart_port struct, initialize it */
 	spin_lock_init(&port->lock);
-	port->membase	= NULL;
-	port->irq	= 0;
 	port->type	= PORT_UNKNOWN;
 	port->iotype	= UPIO_MEM32;
 	port->flags	= UPF_BOOT_AUTOCONF;
 	port->ops	= &cdns_uart_ops;
 	port->fifosize	= CDNS_UART_FIFO_SIZE;
 	port->line	= id;
-	port->dev	= NULL;
 
 	/*
 	 * Register the port.

Alan, Rob, Greg: Any comment about this RFC?

I rarely review RFC patchesets as obviously you don't think it is good
enough to be submitted "for real" :)

There is one missing minor part but I want to review concept first
because I didn't find any driver which is using this style.

quoted

If you think this is all good, great, please resend it without the RFC
and it will end up in my queue.

I will definitely do it but please look at the concept itself because I
would like to use this with at least 3 other drivers.

I don't have the time right now to review "concepts", sorry.

Ok. I will revup that missing part to get it review to be able to use it.

Thanks,
Michal