[PATCH 1/2] net: ravb: Drop empty init callback

[Paul Barker]

On 25/01/2025 12:34, Marek Vasut wrote:
> On 1/21/25 1:15 PM, Marek Vasut wrote:
>> On 1/21/25 1:07 PM, Paul Barker wrote:
>>> On 18/01/2025 06:34, Marek Vasut wrote:
>>>> The init function does nothing, the bb_miiphy_init() already checks
>>>> whether the .init callback is assigned, and if not, skips calling it.
>>>> Remove the empty init function. The entire init callback will be
>>>> removed in follow up patches.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Marek Vasut <marek.vasut+renesas at mailbox.org>
>>>> ---
>>>> Cc: Christian Marangi <ansuelsmth at gmail.com>
>>>> Cc: Evgeny Bachinin <EABachinin at salutedevices.com>
>>>> Cc: Ilias Apalodimas <ilias.apalodimas at linaro.org>
>>>> Cc: Jerome Forissier <jerome.forissier at linaro.org>
>>>> Cc: Joe Hershberger <joe.hershberger at ni.com>
>>>> Cc: Mario Six <mario.six at gdsys.cc>
>>>> Cc: Michal Simek <michal.simek at amd.com>
>>>> Cc: Nobuhiro Iwamatsu <iwamatsu at nigauri.org>
>>>> Cc: Paul Barker <paul.barker.ct at bp.renesas.com>
>>>> Cc: Ramon Fried <rfried.dev at gmail.com>
>>>> Cc: Simon Glass <sjg at chromium.org>
>>>> Cc: Sughosh Ganu <sughosh.ganu at linaro.org>
>>>> Cc: Tom Rini <trini at konsulko.com>
>>>> Cc: u-boot at lists.denx.de
>>>> ---
>>>>   drivers/net/ravb.c | 7 +------
>>>>   1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 6 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/net/ravb.c b/drivers/net/ravb.c
>>>> index 7286ad19598..f9c27f0f370 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/net/ravb.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/net/ravb.c
>>>> @@ -560,11 +560,6 @@ static int ravb_remove(struct udevice *dev)
>>>>       return 0;
>>>>   }
>>>> -static int ravb_bb_init(struct bb_miiphy_bus *bus)
>>>> -{
>>>> -    return 0;
>>>> -}
>>>> -
>>>>   static int ravb_bb_mdio_active(struct bb_miiphy_bus *bus)
>>>>   {
>>>>       struct ravb_priv *eth = bus->priv;
>>>> @@ -626,7 +621,7 @@ static int ravb_bb_delay(struct bb_miiphy_bus *bus)
>>>>   struct bb_miiphy_bus bb_miiphy_buses[] = {
>>>>       {
>>>>           .name        = "ravb",
>>>> -        .init        = ravb_bb_init,
>>>> +        .init        = NULL,
>>>
>>> Do we need to explicitly set this to NULL? The field should be
>>> initialised to zero if we omit it.
>> I don't think it does, this is only a safety assignment until this .init 
>> callback gets fully removed in follow up series.
> 
> I would like to pick these two patches for the upcoming release, is that 
> OK with you ?

I am sure the NULL assignment isn't needed.

The C11 standard [1], section 6.7.9, paragraph 10 states that for
objects with static storage duration, if a field isn't initialized
explicitly it will be initialized to NULL/zero.

[1]: https://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n1548.pdf

Thanks,

-- 
Paul Barker
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: OpenPGP_0x27F4B3459F002257.asc
Type: application/pgp-keys
Size: 3520 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP public key
URL: <https://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/attachments/20250204/6f3feee4/attachment-0001.key>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: OpenPGP_signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 236 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <https://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/attachments/20250204/6f3feee4/attachment-0001.sig>