On Thu, 31 Aug 2017 12:19:03 +0200, Mark Brown wrote: > > On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 10:10:21AM +0200, Alexandre Belloni wrote: > > > And here is the fallout of the stupid, brainless "fixing" of issues > > reported by static analysis tools. > > > This clk_prepare_enable will never fail. If it was going to fail, the > > platform would never boot to a point were it is able to execute that > > code. It is really annoying to have so much churn for absolutely 0 > > benefit. > > It may currently be the case that the SoCs you're looking at happen to > make this clock essential but that doesn't mean that it's not going to > be different in some future SoC, nor that we can't have a software bug > that this will detect. Being consistent with our error checking also > means that we can spot places where it might practically be a problem > more easily, it's even easier if the error checking is there first time > but it's still worth it to go back later. ... yes, but only when it's done correctly. This is again a typical problem by such a trivial fix patch: the code looks as if it were trivial and correct, buried in a patch series that easily leads to the oversight by the maintainer's review. thanks, Takashi _______________________________________________ Alsa-devel mailing list Alsa-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://mailman.alsa-project.org/mailman/listinfo/alsa-devel
