On 17 July 2018 at 12:12, Anand Moon <linux.amoon@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> cleanup err check in exynos_tmu_work as clk internal
> framework will perform if clk is enable/disable
> so drop the double check of IS_ERR and other such references.
I do not understand the statement. Clock framework will perform if clk
is enable/disable? How clock can be "enable" or "disable"? You mean
gate clock? you mean clock pointer is an ERR pointer?
> CC: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <b.zolnierkie@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Anand Moon <linux.amoon@xxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> drivers/thermal/samsung/exynos_tmu.c | 19 ++++++-------------
> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/thermal/samsung/exynos_tmu.c b/drivers/thermal/samsung/exynos_tmu.c
> index 0164c9e..2dbde97 100644
> --- a/drivers/thermal/samsung/exynos_tmu.c
> +++ b/drivers/thermal/samsung/exynos_tmu.c
> @@ -300,8 +300,7 @@ static int exynos_tmu_initialize(struct platform_device *pdev)
>
> mutex_lock(&data->lock);
> clk_enable(data->clk);
> - if (!IS_ERR(data->clk_sec))
> - clk_enable(data->clk_sec);
> + clk_enable(data->clk_sec);
>
> status = readb(data->base + EXYNOS_TMU_REG_STATUS);
> if (!status) {
> @@ -334,8 +333,7 @@ static int exynos_tmu_initialize(struct platform_device *pdev)
> err:
> clk_disable(data->clk);
> mutex_unlock(&data->lock);
> - if (!IS_ERR(data->clk_sec))
> - clk_disable(data->clk_sec);
> + clk_disable(data->clk_sec);
> out:
> return ret;
> }
> @@ -789,19 +787,16 @@ static void exynos_tmu_work(struct work_struct *work)
> struct exynos_tmu_data *data = container_of(work,
> struct exynos_tmu_data, irq_work);
>
> - if (!IS_ERR(data->clk_sec))
> - clk_enable(data->clk_sec);
> - if (!IS_ERR(data->clk_sec))
> - clk_disable(data->clk_sec);
> -
> thermal_zone_device_update(data->tzd, THERMAL_EVENT_UNSPECIFIED);
>
> mutex_lock(&data->lock);
> clk_enable(data->clk);
> + clk_enable(data->clk_sec);
You are changing here the logic completely. Before the "enable" was
followed immediately by "disable". Now you are moving disable
somewhere else... All this looks suspicious...
Best regards,
Krzysztof
>
> /* TODO: take action based on particular interrupt */
> data->tmu_clear_irqs(data);
>
> + clk_disable(data->clk_sec);
> clk_disable(data->clk);
> mutex_unlock(&data->lock);
> enable_irq(data->irq);
> @@ -1134,8 +1129,7 @@ static int exynos_tmu_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> err_sclk:
> clk_disable_unprepare(data->sclk);
> err_clk_sec:
> - if (!IS_ERR(data->clk_sec))
> - clk_disable_unprepare(data->clk_sec);
> + clk_disable_unprepare(data->clk_sec);
> err_clk:
> clk_disable_unprepare(data->clk);
> err_sensor:
> @@ -1155,8 +1149,7 @@ static int exynos_tmu_remove(struct platform_device *pdev)
>
> clk_disable_unprepare(data->sclk);
> clk_disable_unprepare(data->clk);
> - if (!IS_ERR(data->clk_sec))
> - clk_disable_unprepare(data->clk_sec);
> + clk_disable_unprepare(data->clk_sec);
>
> if (!IS_ERR(data->regulator))
> regulator_disable(data->regulator);
> --
> 2.7.4
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-samsung-soc" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
