On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 05:05:47PM +0800, Richard Zhao wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 09:49:50AM +0100, Sascha Hauer wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 09:10:16AM +0800, Richard Zhao wrote:
> > > Signed-off-by: Richard Zhao <richard.zhao@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > > include/linux/clk.h | 19 +++++++++++++++++++
> > > 1 files changed, 19 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/include/linux/clk.h b/include/linux/clk.h
> > > index 7213b52..63985f7 100644
> > > --- a/include/linux/clk.h
> > > +++ b/include/linux/clk.h
> > > @@ -107,6 +107,25 @@ static inline void clk_unprepare(struct clk *clk)
> > > }
> > > #endif
> > >
> > > +static inline int clk_prepare_enable(struct clk *clk)
> > > +{
> > > + int ret;
> > > +
> > > + ret = clk_prepare(clk);
> > > + if (!ret)
> > > + ret = clk_enable(clk);
> > > + if (ret)
> > > + clk_unprepare(clk);
> >
> > As Baruch already pointed out this is hard to read. Also it contains a
> > bug. When clk_prepare fails clk_unprepare is called afterwards.
> >
> > Hint: Kernel guys are not afraid of having multiple return statements
> > in a function, instead they like it when something is handled early
> > without having to read the rest of the function.
> {
> int ret;
>
> ret = clk_prepare(clk);
> if (ret)
> return ret;
> ret = clk_enable(clk);
> if (ret)
> clk_unprepare(clk);
> return ret;
Yes, looks good.
Sascha
--
Pengutronix e.K. | |
Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ |
Peiner Str. 6-8, 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0 |
Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 |
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-mmc" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
