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