On 16/04/16 13:52, Pavel Machek wrote: > On Sat 2016-04-16 13:50:03, Colin King wrote: >> From: Colin Ian King <colin.k...@canonical.com> >> >> It is entirely possible for of_count_phandle_wit_args to >> return a -ve error return value so we need to check for this >> otherwise we end up allocating a negative number of clk objects. >> >> Signed-off-by: Colin Ian King <colin.k...@canonical.com> > > Acked-by: Pavel Machek <pa...@ucw.cz> > > >> diff --git a/drivers/base/power/clock_ops.c b/drivers/base/power/clock_ops.c >> index 0e64a1b..3657ac1 100644 >> --- a/drivers/base/power/clock_ops.c >> +++ b/drivers/base/power/clock_ops.c >> @@ -159,7 +159,7 @@ int of_pm_clk_add_clks(struct device *dev) >> >> count = of_count_phandle_with_args(dev->of_node, "clocks", >> "#clock-cells"); >> - if (count == 0) >> + if (count <= 0) >> return -ENODEV; > > Would it make sense to propagate the error value?
I don't think it will contribute much more than the current return. > > Pavel >
