On Wednesday 04 May 2016 14:34:43 Philipp Zabel wrote:
> Am Mittwoch, den 04.05.2016, 20:34 +0900 schrieb Masahiro Yamada:
> > Hi Arnd,
> >
> > 2016-05-04 20:24 GMT+09:00 Arnd Bergmann :
> > > On Wednesday 04 May 2016 20:17:51 Masahiro Yamada wrote:
> > >> Currently, reset_control_put() just retur
On Wednesday 04 May 2016 20:34:09 Masahiro Yamada wrote:
> I thought about that a bit,
> but there might be some (not nice) drivers that rely on the current behavior.
> I did not want to break any boards with my patch.
>
> So, should it be
>
> if (!rstc)
> return;
>
Am Mittwoch, den 04.05.2016, 20:34 +0900 schrieb Masahiro Yamada:
> Hi Arnd,
>
> 2016-05-04 20:24 GMT+09:00 Arnd Bergmann :
> > On Wednesday 04 May 2016 20:17:51 Masahiro Yamada wrote:
> >> Currently, reset_control_put() just returns for error pointer,
> >> but not for NULL pointer. This is not r
Hi Arnd,
2016-05-04 20:24 GMT+09:00 Arnd Bergmann :
> On Wednesday 04 May 2016 20:17:51 Masahiro Yamada wrote:
>> Currently, reset_control_put() just returns for error pointer,
>> but not for NULL pointer. This is not reasonable.
>>
>> Passing NULL pointer should be allowed as well to make failur
On Wednesday 04 May 2016 20:17:51 Masahiro Yamada wrote:
> Currently, reset_control_put() just returns for error pointer,
> but not for NULL pointer. This is not reasonable.
>
> Passing NULL pointer should be allowed as well to make failure path
> handling easier.
>
> Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yam
Currently, reset_control_put() just returns for error pointer,
but not for NULL pointer. This is not reasonable.
Passing NULL pointer should be allowed as well to make failure path
handling easier.
Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada
---
drivers/reset/core.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+),
6 matches
Mail list logo
