On 04/05, Masahiro Yamada wrote:
The clk_disable() in the common clock framework (drivers/clk/clk.c) returns immediately if a given clk is NULL or an error pointer. It allows clock consumers to call clk_disable() without IS_ERR_OR_NULL checking if drivers are only used with the common clock framework. Unfortunately, NULL/error checking is missing from some of non-common clk_disable() implementations. This prevents us from completely dropping NULL/error checking from callers. Let's make it tree-wide consistent by adding IS_ERR_OR_NULL(clk) to all callees. Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Acked-by: Greg Ungerer <gerg@xxxxxxxxxxx> Acked-by: Wan Zongshun <mcuos.com@xxxxxxxxx> --- Stephen, This patch has been unapplied for a long time. Please let me know if there is something wrong with this patch.
I'm mostly confused why we wouldn't want to encourage people to call clk_disable or unprepare on a clk that's an error pointer. Typically an error pointer should be dealt with, instead of silently ignored, so why wasn't it dealt with by passing it up the probe() path? -- Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-m68k" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
