[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160408003328.GA14441@codeaurora.org>
Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2016 17:33:28 -0700
From: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...eaurora.org>
To: Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com>
Cc: linux-clk@...r.kernel.org, Ralf Baechle <ralf@...ux-mips.org>,
Michael Turquette <mturquette@...libre.com>,
linux-mips@...ux-mips.org, linux-sh@...r.kernel.org,
Haojian Zhuang <haojian.zhuang@...il.com>,
Eric Miao <eric.y.miao@...il.com>,
Hartley Sweeten <hsweeten@...ionengravers.com>,
Greg Ungerer <gerg@...inux.org>,
Ryan Mallon <rmallon@...il.com>,
Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
Steven Miao <realmz6@...il.com>,
Simon Horman <horms@...ge.net.au>,
Wan ZongShun <mcuos.com@...il.com>,
Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org>,
Yoshinori Sato <ysato@...rs.sourceforge.jp>,
adi-buildroot-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net,
Russell King <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
linux-m68k@...ts.linux-m68k.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-renesas-soc@...r.kernel.org,
Magnus Damm <magnus.damm@...il.com>,
John Crispin <blogic@...nwrt.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] clk: let clk_disable() return immediately if clk is
NULL or error
On 04/05, Masahiro Yamada wrote:
> The clk_disable() in the common clock framework (drivers/clk/clk.c)
> returns immediately if a given clk is NULL or an error pointer. It
> allows clock consumers to call clk_disable() without IS_ERR_OR_NULL
> checking if drivers are only used with the common clock framework.
>
> Unfortunately, NULL/error checking is missing from some of non-common
> clk_disable() implementations. This prevents us from completely
> dropping NULL/error checking from callers. Let's make it tree-wide
> consistent by adding IS_ERR_OR_NULL(clk) to all callees.
>
> Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com>
> Acked-by: Greg Ungerer <gerg@...inux.org>
> Acked-by: Wan Zongshun <mcuos.com@...il.com>
> ---
>
> Stephen,
>
> This patch has been unapplied for a long time.
>
> Please let me know if there is something wrong with this patch.
>
I'm mostly confused why we wouldn't want to encourage people to
call clk_disable or unprepare on a clk that's an error pointer.
Typically an error pointer should be dealt with, instead of
silently ignored, so why wasn't it dealt with by passing it up
the probe() path?
--
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum,
a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project
Powered by blists - more mailing lists