linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH v9 1/2] clk: Add comment about __of_clk_get_by

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <TY1PR01MB1769B12A216ED3E76A40A6B7F5A90@TY1PR01MB1769.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com>
Date:   Thu, 6 Dec 2018 12:30:52 +0000
From:   Phil Edworthy <phil.edworthy@...esas.com>
To:     Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
CC:     Michael Turquette <mturquette@...libre.com>,
        Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>,
        Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
        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 v9 1/2] clk: Add comment about __of_clk_get_by_name()
 error values

Hi Andy,

On 03 December 2018 13:31 Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 03, 2018 at 11:13:08AM +0000, Phil Edworthy wrote:
> > It's not immediately obvious from the code that failure to get a clock
> > provider can return either -ENOENT or -EINVAL. Therefore, add a
> > comment to highlight this.
> 
> > +/*
> > + * Beware the return values when np is valid, but no clock provider is
> found.
> > + * If name = NULL, the function returns -ENOENT.
> > + * If name != NULL, the function returns -EINVAL. This is because
> > +__of_clk_get()
> 
> I would start new sentence from new line (this will emphasize the possible
> variants)
> 
>  * This is ...
I disagree, the explanation is specifically related to the case where the function
returns -EINVAL. Though this is a nit, so I'm not really bothered either way.

Thanks for the review!
Phil

>  Otherwise looks good to me:
> 
> Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
> 
> > + * is called even if of_property_match_string() returns an error.
> > + */
> >  static struct clk *__of_clk_get_by_name(struct device_node *np,
> >  					const char *dev_id,
> >  					const char *name)
> > --
> > 2.17.1
> >
> 
> --
> With Best Regards,
> Andy Shevchenko
>