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' <[email protected]> > Cc: Michael Turquette <[email protected]>; Stephen Boyd > <[email protected]>; Russell King <[email protected]>; Geert > Uytterhoeven <[email protected]>; Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine- > [email protected]>; [email protected]; linux- > [email protected]; [email protected] > 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 <[email protected]> > > > > > + * 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 > >
