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

[Marek Vasut]

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 ?