[U-Boot] [PATCH v2 1/5] fdt: boot_get_fdt: remove redundant zeroing out

[Eugeniu Rosca]

Hi Simon,

On Wed, Apr 17, 2019 at 09:33:06PM -0700, Simon Glass wrote:
> Hi Eugeniu,
> 
> On Mon, 1 Apr 2019 at 03:46, Eugeniu Rosca <erosca at de.adit-jv.com> wrote:
> >
> > Paranoid programming [1] lies at the foundation of proper software
> > development, but the repetitive zeroing-out of output arguments in the
> > context of the same function rather clutters the code and inhibits
> > further refactoring/optimization than is doing any good.
> >
> > In boot_get_fdt(), we already perform zero/NULL-initialization of
> > *of_flat_tree and *of_size at the beginning of the function, so doing
> > the same at function error-out is redundant/superfluous.
> >
> > Moreover, keeping the code unchanged might encourage the developers to
> > update *of_flat_tree and *of_size during some interim computations,
> > which is against the current design of boot_get_fdt(). Currently,
> > writing useful data into these arguments happens just before
> > successfully returning from boot_get_fdt() and it should better stay so.
> >
> > [1] https://blog.regehr.org/archives/1106
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Eugeniu Rosca <erosca at de.adit-jv.com>
> > ---
> > Changes in v2:
> >  - s/zeroint-out/zeroing-out/ in commit description
> >  - Link v1: https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/1071586/
> > ---
> >  common/image-fdt.c | 2 --
> >  1 file changed, 2 deletions(-)
> >
> 
> Reviewed-by: Simon Glass <sjg at chromium.org>
> 
> But please update the comment to for the function:
> 
> *     of_flat_tree and of_size are set to 0 if no fdt exists

Thank you very much for the review. Since the patch is part of a series
and there are no other comments except this one, should I decouple it
and send as v3 standalone or there is still some chance for getting
feedback for the other patches (and sending an update for the whole
series)?

> 
> Regards,
> Simon

Best regards,
Eugeniu.