linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 1/1] serial: 8250_bcm7271: Use devm_clk_get_optional

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]

Message-ID: <ZR7YLI3t2YDBbNbK@smile.fi.intel.com>
Date:   Thu, 5 Oct 2023 18:37:16 +0300
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Andi Shyti <andi.shyti@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        linux-serial@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Al Cooper <alcooperx@...il.com>,
        Broadcom internal kernel review list 
        <bcm-kernel-feedback-list@...adcom.com>,
        Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/1] serial: 8250_bcm7271: Use
 devm_clk_get_optional_enabled()

On Thu, Oct 05, 2023 at 05:19:38PM +0200, Andi Shyti wrote:

[...]

> > -	baud_mux_clk = devm_clk_get(dev, "sw_baud");
> > -	if (IS_ERR(baud_mux_clk)) {
> > -		if (PTR_ERR(baud_mux_clk) == -EPROBE_DEFER) {
> > -			ret = -EPROBE_DEFER;
> > -			goto release_dma;
> > -		}
> > -		dev_dbg(dev, "BAUD MUX clock not specified\n");
> > -	} else {
> > +	baud_mux_clk = devm_clk_get_optional_enabled(dev, "sw_baud");
> > +	ret = PTR_ERR_OR_ZERO(baud_mux_clk);
> > +	if (ret)
> > +		goto release_dma;
> > +	if (baud_mux_clk) {
> >  		dev_dbg(dev, "BAUD MUX clock found\n");
> > -		ret = clk_prepare_enable(baud_mux_clk);
> > -		if (ret)
> > -			goto release_dma;
> > +
> >  		priv->baud_mux_clk = baud_mux_clk;
> >  		init_real_clk_rates(dev, priv);
> >  		clk_rate = priv->default_mux_rate;
> > +	} else {
> > +		dev_dbg(dev, "BAUD MUX clock not specified\n");
> 
> little behavioral change here, but I don't think this is a
> problem.

You meant that "if (!x) else" had been changed to "if (x) else" semantics?
Otherwise I don't see any difference.

> Reviewed-by: Andi Shyti <andi.shyti@...ux.intel.com>

Thank you!

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko