[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAA+D8AMSVCbJtcDoCbsMeV6ygrSdARpn3_PWE83mitcnkA1Tog@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2020 19:35:51 +0800
From: Shengjiu Wang <shengjiu.wang@...il.com>
To: Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@....de>
Cc: Linux-ALSA <alsa-devel@...a-project.org>,
linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
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 <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] ASoC: fsl_mqs: Don't check clock is NULL before
calling clk API
On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 4:55 PM Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@....de> wrote:
>
> > 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?
Which document do you mean?
>
>
> > 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