On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 05:57:50PM +0900, Paul Mundt wrote: > On Thu, May 03, 2012 at 04:32:39PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote: > > On Thu, May 03, 2012 at 05:05:34PM +0200, Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote: > > > - if (regulator == NULL || IS_ERR(regulator)) > > > + if (IS_ERR_OR_NULL(regulator)) > > The bigger question here is why we're accepting NULL in the first place. > I'm not sure about the regulator case, but it's been useful to support > passing NULL around in the clock framework case. There are plenty of > cases where a struct clk is optional and if we fail to find the clock we > just set clk to NULL and continue on without having to constantly check > the value of the clk pointer, which helps considerably when you consider > the number of clk_enable/disable() pairs some drivers have. > Presumably the same applies for regulators? This is checking the value of regulator_get(), NULL is a perfectly valid regulator value to get passed back.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
