Hi, Any other comments on this patch and patch 2/2 (https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/12/3/326)?
Thanks Phil > -----Original Message----- > From: Phil Edworthy > Sent: 06 December 2018 12:31 > To: 'Andy Shevchenko' <andriy.shevche...@linux.intel.com> > Cc: Michael Turquette <mturque...@baylibre.com>; Stephen Boyd > <sb...@kernel.org>; Russell King <li...@armlinux.org.uk>; Geert > Uytterhoeven <ge...@linux-m68k.org>; Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine- > koe...@pengutronix.de>; linux-...@vger.kernel.org; linux- > ker...@vger.kernel.org; linux-arm-ker...@lists.infradead.org > Subject: RE: [PATCH v9 1/2] clk: Add comment about > __of_clk_get_by_name() error values > > Hi Andy, > > On 03 December 2018 13:31 Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > On Mon, Dec 03, 2018 at 11:13:08AM +0000, Phil Edworthy wrote: > > > It's not immediately obvious from the code that failure to get a > > > clock provider can return either -ENOENT or -EINVAL. Therefore, add > > > a comment to highlight this. > > > > > +/* > > > + * Beware the return values when np is valid, but no clock provider > > > +is > > found. > > > + * If name = NULL, the function returns -ENOENT. > > > + * If name != NULL, the function returns -EINVAL. This is because > > > +__of_clk_get() > > > > I would start new sentence from new line (this will emphasize the > > possible > > variants) > > > > * This is ... > I disagree, the explanation is specifically related to the case where the > function returns -EINVAL. Though this is a nit, so I'm not really bothered > either way. > > Thanks for the review! > Phil > > > Otherwise looks good to me: > > > > Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevche...@linux.intel.com> > > > > > + * is called even if of_property_match_string() returns an error. > > > + */ > > > static struct clk *__of_clk_get_by_name(struct device_node *np, > > > const char *dev_id, > > > const char *name) > > > -- > > > 2.17.1 > > > > > > > -- > > With Best Regards, > > Andy Shevchenko > >
