[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20121222095620.83E243E07FA@localhost>
Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2012 09:56:20 +0000
From: Grant Likely <grant.likely@...retlab.ca>
To: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
Cc: Kuninori Morimoto <kuninori.morimoto.gx@...esas.com>,
Cyril Roelandt <tipecaml@...il.com>,
spi-devel-general@...ts.sourceforge.net,
kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/5] spi: fix return value check in hspi_probe().
On Wed, 19 Dec 2012 19:39:14 +0300, Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 03:11:54PM +0000, Grant Likely wrote:
> > On Tue, 11 Dec 2012 16:36:27 -0800 (PST), Kuninori Morimoto <kuninori.morimoto.gx@...esas.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi
> > >
> > > > According to its documentation, clk_get() returns a "valid IS_ERR() condition
> > > > containing errno", so we should call IS_ERR() rather than a NULL check.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Cyril Roelandt <tipecaml@...il.com>
> > >
> > > Acked-by: Kuninori Morimoto <kuninori.morimoto.gx@...esas.com>
> >
> > Applied, thanks.
>
> In another thread, we were just talking about who clk_get() can
> return a NULL if !CONFIG_HAVE_CLK. That might change to match the
> documentation later... Not sure.
So what is the solution here? Will the dummy clk_get() be changed, or is
there more work needed on the drivers?
/me stifles a rant about the PTR_ERR pattern
g.
--
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