On 2/20/23 04:39, Michal Suchánek wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 19, 2023 at 11:59:36PM -0600, Samuel Holland wrote:
>> Do not return both NULL and error pointers. The function is only
>> documented as returning error pointers.
>>
>> Fixes: 8a1661f20e6c ("drivers: clk: Handle gracefully NULL pointers")
>> Signed-off-by: Samuel Holland <sam...@sholland.org>
>> ---
>>
>> drivers/clk/clk-uclass.c | 2 +-
>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/clk/clk-uclass.c b/drivers/clk/clk-uclass.c
>> index 78299dbceb2..5bce976b060 100644
>> --- a/drivers/clk/clk-uclass.c
>> +++ b/drivers/clk/clk-uclass.c
>> @@ -490,7 +490,7 @@ struct clk *clk_get_parent(struct clk *clk)
>>
>> debug("%s(clk=%p)\n", __func__, clk);
>> if (!clk_valid(clk))
>> - return NULL;
>> + return ERR_PTR(-ENODEV);
>>
>> pdev = dev_get_parent(clk->dev);
>> if (!pdev)
>
> Do we really need this?
>
> Who cares about the distinction?
>
> Just returning NULL on any error makes the code so much simpler and
> easier to understand.
I'm fine with returning only NULL, or only ERR_PTR(-ENODEV) as done
later in the function, but returning both makes the error handling in
callers more complicated for no benefit. It sounds like you would prefer
I change the later ERR_PTR(-ENODEV) to NULL instead of this change? I
can do that for v2.
Regards,
Samuel
