lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
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