Re: [PATCH] i2c: Convert to using %pOFn instead of device_node.name

[Peter Rosin]

On 2018-08-29 20:42, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 1:03 PM Peter Rosin <peda@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> On 2018-08-28 03:52, Rob Herring wrote:
>>> In preparation to remove the node name pointer from struct device_node,
>>> convert printf users to use the %pOFn format specifier.
>>>
>>> Cc: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> Cc: Paul Mackerras <paulus@xxxxxxxxx>
>>> Cc: Michael Ellerman <mpe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> Cc: Peter Rosin <peda@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>> Cc: linux-i2c@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> Cc: linuxppc-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> Signed-off-by: Rob Herring <robh@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>> ---
>>>  drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-powermac.c | 15 ++++++++-------
>>>  drivers/i2c/muxes/i2c-mux-gpmux.c |  4 ++--
>>>  2 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-powermac.c b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-powermac.c
>>> index f2a2067525ef..b706fd136ca5 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-powermac.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-powermac.c
>>> @@ -390,7 +390,6 @@ static int i2c_powermac_probe(struct platform_device *dev)
>>>       struct pmac_i2c_bus *bus = dev_get_platdata(&dev->dev);
>>>       struct device_node *parent = NULL;
>>
>> Lose the initializer...
> 
> That's pretty much unrelated though.

I disagree. If you remove the need for the initializer, it's very much
related to also remove the initializer.

> I'd have to write "Also, remove
> the unnecessary parent pointer init" in the commit message and we all
> know "Also" is a clue for belongs in a separate patch.

How about: "This makes the parent pointer initializer redundant, lose it."

See, no "Also" in there, and no separate patch needed. Or don't mention it
at all.

Cheers,
Peter