2016-04-08 19:06 GMT+09:00 Ralf Baechle <ralf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> On Thu, Apr 07, 2016 at 05:33:28PM -0700, Stephen Boyd wrote:
>
>> 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?
>
> While your argument makes perfect sense, Many clk_disable implementations
> are already doing similar checks, for example:
>
> arch/arm/mach-davinci/clock.c:
>
> void clk_disable(struct clk *clk)
> {
> unsigned long flags;
>
> if (clk == NULL || IS_ERR(clk))
> return;
> [...]
>
> arch/arm/mach-omap1/clock.c
>
> void clk_disable(struct clk *clk)
> {
> unsigned long flags;
>
> if (clk == NULL || IS_ERR(clk))
> return;
> [...]
>
> arch/avr32/mach-at32ap/clock.c
>
> void clk_disable(struct clk *clk)
> {
> unsigned long flags;
>
> if (IS_ERR_OR_NULL(clk))
> return;
> [...]
>
> arch/mips/lantiq/clk.c:
>
> static inline int clk_good(struct clk *clk)
> {
> return clk && !IS_ERR(clk);
> }
>
> [...]
>
> void clk_disable(struct clk *clk)
> {
> if (unlikely(!clk_good(clk)))
> return;
>
> if (clk->disable)
> [...]
>
> So should we go and weed out these checks?
>
> Ralf
Please help me understand your thought clearly.
[1] Should calling clk_unprepare/disable() with a NULL pointer be allowed?
[2] Should calling clk_unprepare/disable() with an error pointer be allowed?
--
Best Regards
Masahiro Yamada
