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

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.

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.

Thanks,
Michal