[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <zd5673eo7kqwg67lsy6h3m4zdpmgp5xzhr355ialwx6zhdopfb@7x3v5b747sqn>
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2024 23:24:21 +0100
From: Andi Shyti <andi.shyti@...nel.org>
To: Jiasheng Jiang <jiashengjiangcool@...il.com>
Cc: dianders@...omium.org, rmk@...-67.arm.linux.org.uk,
max.schwarz@...ine.de, david.wu@...k-chips.com, heiko@...ech.de, vz@...ia.com,
wsa@...nel.org, manabian@...il.com, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-rockchip@...ts.infradead.org, linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/3] i2c: rk3x: Add check for clk_enable()
Hi Jiasheng,
On Thu, Nov 07, 2024 at 09:14:28PM +0000, Jiasheng Jiang wrote:
> Add check for the return value of clk_enable() in order to catch the
> potential exception. Moreover, convert the return type of
It's more an "unlikely exception" rather than a "potential
exeption".
> rk3x_i2c_adapt_div() into int and add the check.
...
> static u32 rk3x_i2c_func(struct i2c_adapter *adap)
> @@ -1365,9 +1389,12 @@ static int rk3x_i2c_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> }
>
> clk_rate = clk_get_rate(i2c->clk);
> - rk3x_i2c_adapt_div(i2c, clk_rate);
> + ret = rk3x_i2c_adapt_div(i2c, clk_rate);
> clk_disable(i2c->clk);
you can't disable a clock that has failed to enable, right?
BTW, although I like this patch (or at least I don't dislike), I
still want to check whether it's wanted or not.
Andi
>
> + if (ret)
> + goto err_clk_notifier;
> +
> ret = i2c_add_adapter(&i2c->adap);
> if (ret < 0)
> goto err_clk_notifier;
> --
> 2.25.1
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists