[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20181130110446.GE30658@n2100.armlinux.org.uk>
Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2018 11:04:46 +0000
From: Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@...linux.org.uk>
To: Phil Edworthy <phil.edworthy@...esas.com>
Cc: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>,
Michael Turquette <mturquette@...libre.com>,
Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
Uwe Kleine-König
<u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>,
"linux-clk@...r.kernel.org" <linux-clk@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8] clk: Add (devm_)clk_get_optional() functions
On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 10:25:37AM +0000, Phil Edworthy wrote:
> Hi Stephen,
>
> On 30 November 2018 09:09 Stephen Boyd wrote:
> > Quoting Phil Edworthy (2018-11-20 06:14:45)
> > > This adds clk_get_optional() and devm_clk_get_optional() functions to
> > > get optional clocks.
> > > They behave the same as (devm_)clk_get except where there is no clock
> > > producer. In this case, instead of returning -ENOENT, the function
> > > returns NULL. This makes error checking simpler and allows
> > > clk_prepare_enable, etc to be called on the returned reference without
> > > additional checks.
> >
> > Ok. I guess that works by virtue of how -ENOENT is returned by various
> > functions that are called deeper in the clk_get() path? I'm cautiously
> > optimistic. So cautious, we should probably add a comment to these optional
> > functions that indicate they rely on the functions they call to return -ENOENT
> > under the various conditions that make a clk optional.
> Yes, it does indeed rely on how clk_get() is implemented.
> Specifically, that if __of_clk_get_by_name() returns -EINVAL, the error is
> superseded by clk_get_sys() returning -ENOENT.
> As you say, a comment may help here.
Each time the question of the optional clk_get() stuff comes up, we go
around the same discussions time and time again. So far, each time
has ended up flopping.
Yes, clk_get() can only ever return -ENOENT if it falls back to the
non-DT methods, because it assumes that the clk tables are complete
(it can do nothing else.)
I don't think it needs a comment because it's obvious from the code
and also from the implementation point of view.
> > > +static inline struct clk *clk_get_optional(struct device *dev, const
> > > +char *id)
> >
> > Any kernel doc for this function?
> I took my cue from the surrounding functions, let me know if I have to add it.
I don't see you need to - this is an internal function by way of the
"static inline" you have before it. It's not an API function.
--
RMK's Patch system: http://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/
FTTC broadband for 0.8mile line in suburbia: sync at 12.1Mbps down 622kbps up
According to speedtest.net: 11.9Mbps down 500kbps up
Powered by blists - more mailing lists