Hi, On Tue, Dec 12, 2023 at 06:26:37PM +0100, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: > Hello, > > clk_rate_exclusive_get() returns zero unconditionally. Most users "know" > that and don't check the return value. This series fixes the four users > that do error checking on the returned value and then makes function > return void. > > Given that the changes to the drivers are simple and so merge conflicts > (if any) should be easy to handle, I suggest to merge this complete > series via the clk tree. I don't think it's the right way to go about it. clk_rate_exclusive_get() should be expected to fail. For example if there's another user getting an exclusive rate on the same clock. If we're not checking for it right now, then it should probably be fixed, but the callers checking for the error are right to do so if they rely on an exclusive rate. It's the ones that don't that should be modified. Maxime
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
