[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1355943649.2451.1.camel@gitbox>
Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2012 08:00:49 +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 Thu, 2012-12-20 at 06:34 +1300, Tony Prisk wrote:
> 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?
>
For the sake of clarity, I should rephrase:
If the driver can't operate with a NULL clk, it should use a
IS_ERR_OR_NULL test to test for failure, rather than IS_ERR.
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