On 7 March 2013 08:51, Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 07, 2013 at 08:32:37AM +0800, Viresh Kumar wrote:
>> On 5 March 2013 18:52, Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > On Tue, Mar 05, 2013 at 12:52:41PM +0800, Viresh Kumar wrote:
>> >> + clk[cluster] = clk_get(NULL, name);
>> >> + if (!IS_ERR_OR_NULL(clk[cluster])) {
>> >
>> > NAK. Two reasons.
>> >
>> > 1. IS_ERR_OR_NULL. You know about this, it's been on the list several
>> > times.
>>
>> Hey, i had a second thought about this one and i have some other opinion
>> here. This is a cpufreq driver and we need clock support for sure here, we
>> can't work without it. And so here is the latest fixup:
>
> NAK. You just don't understand.
Poor me!!
I still remember the huge discussions we had during "clk: Add non
CONFIG_HAVE_CLK routines" patchset.
For others: https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/4/24/389
Back to the discussion, I understand that clk_get() just returns a cookie and
NULL is not an error and so it shouldn't be treated specially. And that's what
we do with most of our drivers as all other clk routines (clk_get[set]_rate())
have safe guards against the NULL clk, and they wouldn't complain.
The special case we have in a cpufreq driver is, we can't work with
zero returned
from clk_get_rate()... That will make cpufreq driver work badly.
And that's why i got two additions
- depends on HAVE_CLK
- and using IS_ERR_OR_NULL
as NULL returned from clk_get is not a error but is not acceptable to
the cpufreq
driver.
Because i now have the HAVE_CLK dependency i am not sure if we can get NULL
returned from clk_get() at all. Can you get around something here?
--
viresh
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe cpufreq" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
