On Tuesday 06 June 2017 04:24 PM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 12:44 PM, Arvind Yadav <arvind.yadav.cs@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
clk_prepare_enable() can fail here and we must check its return value.
@@ -1676,7 +1676,11 @@ static int pxa2xx_spi_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
- clk_prepare_enable(ssp->clk);
+ status = clk_prepare_enable(ssp->clk);
This one looks fine.
@@ -1855,8 +1859,13 @@ static int pxa2xx_spi_resume(struct device *dev)
/* Enable the SSP clock */
- if (!pm_runtime_suspended(dev))
- clk_prepare_enable(ssp->clk);
+ if (!pm_runtime_suspended(dev)) {
+ status = clk_prepare_enable(ssp->clk);
+ if (status) {
+ dev_err(dev, "Failed to prepare clock\n");
+ return status;
+ }
This...
@@ -1886,8 +1895,7 @@ static int pxa2xx_spi_runtime_resume(struct device *dev)
{
struct driver_data *drv_data = dev_get_drvdata(dev);
- clk_prepare_enable(drv_data->ssp->clk);
- return 0;
+ return clk_prepare_enable(drv_data->ssp->clk);
...and especially this should be carefully checked since there are
differences in behaviour how system or driver will be resumed.
yes true, here clk_prepare_enable will return 0 on successful attempt.
what do you suggest here, we should not return like this.?
So, the question is how did you test it?
It can fail, I am not able to produce clock failure issue. If you have
any suggestion.
please let me know.
-arvind
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-spi" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
