[PATCH V3 5/9] phy: qcom-qmp-ufs: Remove qmp_ufs_com_init()

[Dmitry Baryshkov]

On Sun, Apr 20, 2025 at 01:38:40AM +0530, Nitin Rawat wrote:
> 
> 
> On 4/14/2025 1:13 PM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 14, 2025 at 12:58:48PM +0530, Nitin Rawat wrote:
> > > 
> > > 
> > > On 4/11/2025 4:26 PM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> > > > On Fri, 11 Apr 2025 at 13:42, Nitin Rawat <quic_nitirawa at quicinc.com> wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > On 4/11/2025 1:39 AM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> > > > > > On Thu, Apr 10, 2025 at 02:30:58PM +0530, Nitin Rawat wrote:
> > > > > > > Simplify the qcom ufs phy driver by inlining qmp_ufs_com_init() into
> > > > > > > qmp_ufs_power_on(). This change removes unnecessary function calls and
> > > > > > > ensures that the initialization logic is directly within the power-on
> > > > > > > routine, maintaining the same functionality.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Which problem is this patch trying to solve?
> > > > > 
> > > > > Hi Dmitry,
> > > > > 
> > > > > As part of the patch, I simplified the code by moving qmp_ufs_com_init
> > > > > inline to qmp_ufs_power_on, since qmp_ufs_power_on was merely calling
> > > > > qmp_ufs_com_init. This change eliminates unnecessary function call.
> > > > 
> > > > You again are describing what you did. Please start by stating the
> > > > problem or the issue.
> > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > Hi Dmitry,
> > > 
> > > Sure, will update the commit with "problem" first in the next patchset when
> > > I post.
> > 
> > Before posting the next iteration, maybe you can respond inline? It well
> > might be that there is no problem to solve.a
> 
> Hi Dmitry,
> 
> Apologies for late reply , I just realized I missed responding to your
> comment on this patch.
> 
> 
> There is no functional "problem" here.
> ===================================================================
> The qmp_ufs_power_on() function acts as a wrapper, solely invoking
> qmp_ufs_com_init(). Additionally, the code within qmp_ufs_com_init() does
> not correspond well with its name.
> 
> Therefore, to enhance the readability and eliminate unnecessary function
> call inline qmp_ufs_com_init() into qmp_ufs_power_on().
> 
> There is no change to the functionality.
> ==================================================================
> 
> 
> I agree with you that there isn't a significant issue here. If you insist,
> I'm okay with skipping this patch. Let me know your thoughts.


Reviewed-by: Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov at oss.qualcomm.com>



-- 
With best wishes
Dmitry