[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <aa38479b-0597-17ca-ab2b-1092ece77d11@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2017 14:53:30 +0530
From: Arvind Yadav <arvind.yadav.cs@...il.com>
To: Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@...e-electrons.com>
Cc: gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, nicolas.ferre@...rochip.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] misc: atmel-ssc: Handle return value of
clk_prepare_enable and clk_prepare
Hi,
Yes, Patch v1 was wrong that's why i have push v2.
clk_prepare and clk_prepare_enable can fail. There
is not harm to check it's return value. It'll not impact present
functionality.
-arvind
On Sunday 04 June 2017 03:47 AM, Alexandre Belloni wrote:
> Hi,
>
> It is getting tiring to get patches that are nor even compile tested
> resulting from whatever static analysis tool you used.
>
> This patch has almost no value and v1 was clearly wrong.
>
> Do you realize clk_prepare and clk_prepare_enable will never fail for
> the SSC?
>
> On 02/06/2017 at 11:09:02 +0530, Arvind Yadav wrote:
>> clk_prepare_enable() and clk_prepare() can fail here and
>> we must check its return value.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Arvind Yadav <arvind.yadav.cs@...il.com>
>> ---
>> drivers/misc/atmel-ssc.c | 12 ++++++++++--
>> 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/misc/atmel-ssc.c b/drivers/misc/atmel-ssc.c
>> index b2a0340..df34b81 100644
>> --- a/drivers/misc/atmel-ssc.c
>> +++ b/drivers/misc/atmel-ssc.c
>> @@ -30,6 +30,7 @@ struct ssc_device *ssc_request(unsigned int ssc_num)
>> {
>> int ssc_valid = 0;
>> struct ssc_device *ssc;
>> + int ret;
>>
>> spin_lock(&user_lock);
>> list_for_each_entry(ssc, &ssc_list, list) {
>> @@ -60,7 +61,11 @@ struct ssc_device *ssc_request(unsigned int ssc_num)
>> ssc->user++;
>> spin_unlock(&user_lock);
>>
>> - clk_prepare(ssc->clk);
>> + ret = clk_prepare(ssc->clk);
>> + if (ret) {
>> + pr_err("Failed to prepare clock\n");
>> + return ERR_PTR(ret);
>> + }
>>
>> return ssc;
>> }
>> @@ -195,6 +200,7 @@ static int ssc_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>> struct resource *regs;
>> struct ssc_device *ssc;
>> const struct atmel_ssc_platform_data *plat_dat;
>> + int ret;
>>
>> ssc = devm_kzalloc(&pdev->dev, sizeof(struct ssc_device), GFP_KERNEL);
>> if (!ssc) {
>> @@ -229,7 +235,9 @@ static int ssc_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>> }
>>
>> /* disable all interrupts */
>> - clk_prepare_enable(ssc->clk);
>> + ret = clk_prepare_enable(ssc->clk);
>> + if (ret)
>> + return ret;
>> ssc_writel(ssc->regs, IDR, -1);
>> ssc_readl(ssc->regs, SR);
>> clk_disable_unprepare(ssc->clk);
>> --
>> 1.9.1
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> linux-arm-kernel mailing list
>> linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
>> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
Powered by blists - more mailing lists