[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20181226083224.GR2188@piout.net>
Date: Wed, 26 Dec 2018 09:32:24 +0100
From: Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@...tlin.com>
To: Kangjie Lu <kjlu@....edu>
Cc: pakki001@....edu, Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@...rochip.com>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Ludovic Desroches <ludovic.desroches@...rochip.com>,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] atmel: fix a missing check of clk_prepare
Hi,
On 25/12/2018 20:54:05-0600, Kangjie Lu wrote:
> clk_prepare() could fail, so let's check its status, and if it fails,
> issue an error message.
>
> Signed-off-by: Kangjie Lu <kjlu@....edu>
> ---
> drivers/misc/atmel-ssc.c | 3 ++-
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/misc/atmel-ssc.c b/drivers/misc/atmel-ssc.c
> index d8e3cc2dc747..9e69d0585f49 100644
> --- a/drivers/misc/atmel-ssc.c
> +++ b/drivers/misc/atmel-ssc.c
> @@ -60,7 +60,8 @@ struct ssc_device *ssc_request(unsigned int ssc_num)
> ssc->user++;
> spin_unlock(&user_lock);
>
> - clk_prepare(ssc->clk);
> + if (clk_prepare(ssc->clk))
> + pr_err("ssc: failed to prepare clk.\n");
>
There is no point in adding this check and yet another string to please
a static analysis tool. This is especially true because clk_prepare will
never actually fail else you wouldn't reach this code anyway.
--
Alexandre Belloni, Bootlin
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
https://bootlin.com
Powered by blists - more mailing lists