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]

Date:   Wed, 16 Jan 2019 15:18:42 +0000
From:   Phil Edworthy <phil.edworthy@...esas.com>
To:     Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
        Michael Turquette <mturquette@...libre.com>,
        Uwe Kleine-König 
        <u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>, Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>,
        Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
        Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>
CC:     "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,

Any other comments on this patch and patch 2/2 (https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/12/3/326)?

Thanks
Phil

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Phil Edworthy
> Sent: 06 December 2018 12:31
> 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-
> kernel@...r.kernel.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
> >