Cc'ing Mark as well.
On 15-02-16, 21:38, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> There is usually something else wrong if you have to check for both.
> Why exactly do you need to check for both IS_ERR and NULL?
And here is the reasoning behind it:
- It is normally said that 'NULL' is a valid clk. The same is
applicable to regulators as well, right? At least, that is what
below says:
commit 4a511de96d69 ("cpufreq: cpufreq-cpu0: NULL is a valid
regulator")
- And so I left the regulator pointer to NULL in OPP core.
- But then I realized that its not safe to call many regulator core
APIs with NULL regulator, as those caused the crashes reported by
multiple people now.
- clk APIs guarantee that they return early when NULL clk is passed to
them.
- Do we need to do the same for regulator core as well ?
- And so I initialized the pointer to an error value now, as
initializing it to NULL (possibly a valid regulator, in theory)
isn't the right thing to do.
> > diff --git a/drivers/base/power/opp/core.c b/drivers/base/power/opp/core.c
> > index d7cd4e265766..146b6197d598 100644
> > --- a/drivers/base/power/opp/core.c
> > +++ b/drivers/base/power/opp/core.c
> > @@ -257,7 +257,7 @@ unsigned long dev_pm_opp_get_max_volt_latency(struct
> > device *dev)
> > }
> >
> > reg = dev_opp->regulator;
> > - if (IS_ERR_OR_NULL(reg)) {
> > + if (IS_ERR(reg)) {
> > /* Regulator may not be required for device */
> > if (reg)
> > dev_err(dev, "%s: Invalid regulator (%ld)\n", __func__,
> > @@ -798,6 +798,9 @@ static struct device_opp *_add_device_opp(struct device
> > *dev)
> > of_node_put(np);
> > }
> >
> > + /* Set regulator to a non-NULL error value */
> > + dev_opp->regulator = ERR_PTR(-EFAULT);
> > +
> > /* Find clk for the device */
> > dev_opp->clk = clk_get(dev, NULL);
> > if (IS_ERR(dev_opp->clk)) {
>
> -EFAULT has a very specific meaning (accessing an invalid pointer from
> user space), I don't think you want that one.
Sorry, wasn't aware of those requirements. What Rafael suggested is
the right thing to do then.
--
viresh
