On 05/06/2017 at 14:53:30 +0530, Arvind Yadav wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Yes, Patch v1 was wrong that's why i have push v2.
> clk_prepare and clk_prepare_enable can fail. There
No this is not true, they will never fail for the SSC.
> is not harm to check it's return value. It'll not impact present
> functionality.
>
It does impact boot time, this patch adds 112 bytes to a compressed
kernel for no reason.
> -arvind
>
> On Sunday 04 June 2017 03:47 AM, Alexandre Belloni wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > It is getting tiring to get patches that are nor even compile tested
> > resulting from whatever static analysis tool you used.
> >
> > This patch has almost no value and v1 was clearly wrong.
> >
> > Do you realize clk_prepare and clk_prepare_enable will never fail for
> > the SSC?
> >
> > On 02/06/2017 at 11:09:02 +0530, Arvind Yadav wrote:
> > > clk_prepare_enable() and clk_prepare() can fail here and
> > > we must check its return value.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Arvind Yadav <arvind.yadav...@gmail.com>
> > > ---
> > > drivers/misc/atmel-ssc.c | 12 ++++++++++--
> > > 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/misc/atmel-ssc.c b/drivers/misc/atmel-ssc.c
> > > index b2a0340..df34b81 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/misc/atmel-ssc.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/misc/atmel-ssc.c
> > > @@ -30,6 +30,7 @@ struct ssc_device *ssc_request(unsigned int ssc_num)
> > > {
> > > int ssc_valid = 0;
> > > struct ssc_device *ssc;
> > > + int ret;
> > > spin_lock(&user_lock);
> > > list_for_each_entry(ssc, &ssc_list, list) {
> > > @@ -60,7 +61,11 @@ struct ssc_device *ssc_request(unsigned int ssc_num)
> > > ssc->user++;
> > > spin_unlock(&user_lock);
> > > - clk_prepare(ssc->clk);
> > > + ret = clk_prepare(ssc->clk);
> > > + if (ret) {
> > > + pr_err("Failed to prepare clock\n");
> > > + return ERR_PTR(ret);
> > > + }
> > > return ssc;
> > > }
> > > @@ -195,6 +200,7 @@ static int ssc_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> > > struct resource *regs;
> > > struct ssc_device *ssc;
> > > const struct atmel_ssc_platform_data *plat_dat;
> > > + int ret;
> > > ssc = devm_kzalloc(&pdev->dev, sizeof(struct ssc_device),
> > > GFP_KERNEL);
> > > if (!ssc) {
> > > @@ -229,7 +235,9 @@ static int ssc_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> > > }
> > > /* disable all interrupts */
> > > - clk_prepare_enable(ssc->clk);
> > > + ret = clk_prepare_enable(ssc->clk);
> > > + if (ret)
> > > + return ret;
> > > ssc_writel(ssc->regs, IDR, -1);
> > > ssc_readl(ssc->regs, SR);
> > > clk_disable_unprepare(ssc->clk);
> > > --
> > > 1.9.1
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > linux-arm-kernel mailing list
> > > linux-arm-ker...@lists.infradead.org
> > > http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
>
--
Alexandre Belloni, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
http://free-electrons.com
