[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1355938492.27893.8.camel@gitbox>
Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2012 06:34:52 +1300
From: Tony Prisk <linux@...sktech.co.nz>
To: Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>
Cc: Mike Turquette <mturquette@...aro.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Arm Kernel Mailing List
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: Inconsistency in clk framework
On Wed, 2012-12-19 at 09:26 +0000, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 05:10:33PM +1300, Tony Prisk wrote:
> > Hi Mike,
> >
> > In attempting to remove some IS_ERR_OR_NULL references, it was pointed
> > out that clk_get() can return NULL if CONFIG_HAVE_CLK is not defined.
>
> That is correct - but why is that a problem? As far as users are
> concerned, NULL is a valid clock. If HAVE_CLK is undefined, do you
> want all your drivers to suddenly stop working?
That will be where the misunderstanding has occurred - I didn't consider
NULL to be a valid clock.
Given that NULL is a valid clock, I guess all tests against get_clk and
of_get_clk results should be IS_ERR_OR_NULL. Correct?
Regards
Tony P
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists