Hi,
On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 05:20:11PM +0530, Kishon Vijay Abraham I wrote:
> >>>>>Adding APIs to handle runtime power management on PHY
> >>>>>devices. PHY consumers may need to wake-up/suspend PHYs
> >>>>>when they work across autosuspend.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Signed-off-by: Vivek Gautam <gautam.vivek@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>>>>---
> >>>>> include/linux/usb/phy.h | 141 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >>>>> 1 files changed, 141 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
> >>>>>
> >>>>>diff --git a/include/linux/usb/phy.h b/include/linux/usb/phy.h
> >>>>>index 6b5978f..01bf9c1 100644
> >>>>>--- a/include/linux/usb/phy.h
> >>>>>+++ b/include/linux/usb/phy.h
> >>>>>@@ -297,4 +297,145 @@ static inline const char *usb_phy_type_string(enum usb_phy_type type)
> >>>>> return "UNKNOWN PHY TYPE";
> >>>>> }
> >>>>> }
> >>>>>+
> >>>>>+static inline void usb_phy_autopm_enable(struct usb_phy *x)
> >>>>>+{
> >>>>>+ if (!x || !x->dev) {
> >>>>>+ dev_err(x->dev, "no PHY or attached device available\n");
> >>>>>+ return;
> >>>>>+ }
> >>>>
> >>>>wrong indentation, also, I'm not sure we should allow calls with NULL
> >>>>pointers. Perhaps a WARN() so we get API offenders early enough ?
> >>>
> >>>True, bad coding style :-(
> >>>We should be handling dev_err with a NULL pointer.
> >>>Will just keep here:
> >>>if (WARN_ON(!x->dev))
> >>> return .... ;
> >>
> >>right, but I guess:
> >>
> >>if (WARN(!x || !x->dev, "Invalid parameters\n"))
> >> return -EINVAL;
> >>
> >>would be better ??
>
> btw, shouldn't it be IS_ERR(x)?
not in this case, since we're trying to catch users passing NULL to as
the phy argument.
--
balbi
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
