Re: [PATCH V2 4/8] gpio: vf610: add optional clock support

[Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 12:23:12PM +0000, A.s. Dong wrote:
> Hi Russell,
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Russell King - ARM Linux [mailto:linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> > Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2018 8:04 PM
> [...]
> > On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 11:49:17AM +0000, A.s. Dong wrote:
> > > +	clk_gpio = devm_clk_get(&pdev->dev, "gpio");
> > > +	clk_port = devm_clk_get(&pdev->dev, "port");
> > > +	if ((PTR_ERR(clk_gpio) == -EPROBE_DEFER) ||
> > > +	    (PTR_ERR(clk_port) == -EPROBE_DEFER)) {
> > 
> > 	if (clk_gpio == ERR_PTR(-EPROBE_DEFER) ||
> > 	    clk_port == ERR_PTR(-EPROBE_DEFER)) {
> > 
> 
> Thanks for the suggestion. I will update it in next series.
> Before that, let's wait a moment to see if any more review comments.
> 
> BTW, as I see kernel currently is widely using PTR_ERR(ptr) to compare
> -EPROBE_DEFER, I'm not quite get the point why the new approach
> you suggested is better, is it less error-prone? Or something else?
> would you please help clarify a bit more?

See the discussion in https://lore.kernel.org/patchwork/patch/999602/.

Best regards
Uwe

-- 
Pengutronix e.K.                           | Uwe Kleine-König            |
Industrial Linux Solutions                 | http://www.pengutronix.de/  |