Le 10/06/2023 à 19:10, Andi Shyti a écrit :
On Sat, Jun 10, 2023 at 06:23:58PM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
On 10/06/2023 16:54, Andi Shyti wrote:
On Sat, Jun 10, 2023 at 04:07:51PM +0200, Christophe JAILLET wrote:
Le 10/06/2023 à 12:26, Andi Shyti a écrit :
@@ -1459,8 +1459,10 @@ static unsigned int s3c24xx_serial_getclk(struct s3c24xx_uart_port *ourport,
continue;
rate = clk_get_rate(clk);
- if (!rate)
+ if (!rate) {
+ clk_put(clk);
continue;
could you also print an error here?
Is:
dev_err(ourport->port.dev,
"Failed to get clock rate for %s.\n", clkname);
Why do we need it? Most of other users of clk_get_rate() don't print.
that's not a reason not to print it.
Probably because such condition is highly unlikely if not impossible.
still... that's not a reason not to print it.
All errors are unlikely and if it's unlikely, why there is no
unlikely(!rate)? Which doesn't improve the reason not to print
it.
The more unlikely, the lauder you need to be:
WARN_ON(!rate)... maybe too much!
BUG_ON(!rate)... way too much!
But these are inversely proportional to the likeliness of the
error.
This makes simple function unnecessarily bigger...
and... that's not a reason not to print it :)
If it's needed, it's needed. If we are considering the error,
then we need to treat it as an error.
In any case, I'm not strong with it, indeed, I r-b it anyway. I
personally prefer and suggested printing the error. Up to
Christophe.
git grep -A5 clk_get_rate | grep dev_err | wc -l
173
git grep clk_get_rate | wc -l
1464
(+ Krzysztof's argumentation)
So lets go for v1.
Can v1 be taken as is?
(knowing that I don't really care about the new 3/3 related to abs())
Or should I send a v3 to ease the process?
CJ
Thanks,
Andi
