On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 04:12:39PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Tuesday 16 February 2016 13:11:08 Mark Brown wrote:
> > No, we always return an error pointer if we fail to get a regulator.
> > The difference with optional regulators is in how we handle the
> > situation where we have full cons
On Tuesday 16 February 2016 13:11:08 Mark Brown wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 10:10:44AM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > On Tuesday 16 February 2016 01:56:16 Mark Brown wrote:
>
> > > No, NULL is explicitly not something you can substitute in,
> > > essentially all the users are just not bother
On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 10:10:44AM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Tuesday 16 February 2016 01:56:16 Mark Brown wrote:
> > No, NULL is explicitly not something you can substitute in,
> > essentially all the users are just not bothering to implement error
> > checking and we don't want to encourag
On Tuesday 16 February 2016 01:56:16 Mark Brown wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 06:30:59AM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
>
> > - 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 c
On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 06:30:59AM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> - 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 AP
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
ap
On Tuesday, February 16, 2016 06:17:16 AM Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 15-02-16, 22:13, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > That should be something like -ENXIO IMO.
>
> Thanks for modifying and applying the patch :)
Well, you're welcome.
I wanted it to be fixed in the tomorrow's linux-next so people can b
On 15-02-16, 22:13, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> That should be something like -ENXIO IMO.
Thanks for modifying and applying the patch :)
--
viresh
On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 9:38 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Monday 15 February 2016 21:56:42 Viresh Kumar wrote:
>> We are currently required to do two checks for regulator pointer:
>> IS_ERR() and IS_NULL().
>>
>> And multiple instances are reported, about both of these not being used
>> consisten
On Monday 15 February 2016 21:56:42 Viresh Kumar wrote:
> We are currently required to do two checks for regulator pointer:
> IS_ERR() and IS_NULL().
>
> And multiple instances are reported, about both of these not being used
> consistently and so resulting in crashes.
>
> Fix that by initializin
On 15-02-16, 16:42, Jon Hunter wrote:
>
> On 15/02/16 16:26, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> > We are currently required to do two checks for regulator pointer:
> > IS_ERR() and IS_NULL().
> >
> > And multiple instances are reported, about both of these not being used
> > consistently and so resulting in c
On 15/02/16 16:26, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> We are currently required to do two checks for regulator pointer:
> IS_ERR() and IS_NULL().
>
> And multiple instances are reported, about both of these not being used
> consistently and so resulting in crashes.
>
> Fix that by initializing regulator poin
We are currently required to do two checks for regulator pointer:
IS_ERR() and IS_NULL().
And multiple instances are reported, about both of these not being used
consistently and so resulting in crashes.
Fix that by initializing regulator pointer with an error value and
checking it only against a
13 matches
Mail list logo
