On 04/05, Masahiro Yamada wrote: > The clk_disable() in the common clock framework (drivers/clk/clk.c) > returns immediately if a given clk is NULL or an error pointer. It > allows clock consumers to call clk_disable() without IS_ERR_OR_NULL > checking if drivers are only used with the common clock framework. > > Unfortunately, NULL/error checking is missing from some of non-common > clk_disable() implementations. This prevents us from completely > dropping NULL/error checking from callers. Let's make it tree-wide > consistent by adding IS_ERR_OR_NULL(clk) to all callees. > > Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masah...@socionext.com> > Acked-by: Greg Ungerer <g...@uclinux.org> > Acked-by: Wan Zongshun <mcuos....@gmail.com> > --- > > Stephen, > > This patch has been unapplied for a long time. > > Please let me know if there is something wrong with this patch. >
I'm mostly confused why we wouldn't want to encourage people to call clk_disable or unprepare on a clk that's an error pointer. Typically an error pointer should be dealt with, instead of silently ignored, so why wasn't it dealt with by passing it up the probe() path? -- Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project
