[<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