RE: [PATCH] pwm: pwm-imx27: Use 'dev' instead of dereferencing it repeatedly

[Anson Huang]

Hi, David

> Subject: RE: [PATCH] pwm: pwm-imx27: Use 'dev' instead of dereferencing it
> repeatedly
> 
> 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@xxxxxxx>
> > ---
> >  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.
> 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.

Do we know which compiler will optimize this? I saw many of the patches doing
this to avoid a lot of dereference, I understand it does NOT save lines, but my intention
is to avoid dereference which might save some instructions.

I thought saving instructions is more important. So now there are different opinion about
doing this?

Anson