[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <24be48d2-63de-b900-cec7-d21e83a89ca2@web.de>
Date:   Tue, 23 Jun 2020 10:55:52 +0200
From:   Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@....de>
To:     Shengjiu Wang <shengjiu.wang@...il.com>,
        alsa-devel@...a-project.org, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org
Cc:     Shengjiu Wang <shengjiu.wang@....com>,
        Xiubo Li <Xiubo.Lee@...il.com>, Timur Tabi <timur@...nel.org>,
        Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.com>,
        Nicolin Chen <nicoleotsuka@...il.com>,
        Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
        Fabio Estevam <festevam@...il.com>,
        kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] ASoC: fsl_mqs: Don't check clock is NULL before
 calling clk API
>     clk_prepare_enable and clk_disable_unprepare check the input
>     clock parameter in the beginning of the function,
These functions call further functions which perform null pointer checks.
>                                                       if the parameter
>     is NULL, clk_prepare_enable and clk_disable_unprepare will
>     return immediately.
The interpretation of these function implementations seems to be reasonable.
Would you like to achieve any improvements for the corresponding software documentation?
>     So Don't need to check input clock parameters before calling clk API.
What do you find imperative in this wording?
Another wording alternative:
   Thus omit extra null pointer checks before four function calls.
Regards,
Markus
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
 
