On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 8:00 AM, Niklas Cassel wrote:
> Since NULL is a valid clock, we shouldn't use
> IS_ERR_OR_NULL.
Yes, but this code is not using IS_ERR_OR_NULL.
It seems that you are not describing the problem you are trying to solve.
What is the exact issue you are seeing?
> c
From: Johan Hovold
Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2015 13:08:07 +0200
> On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 01:05:17PM +0200, Johan Hovold wrote:
>> On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 01:00:50PM +0200, Niklas Cassel wrote:
>> > Since NULL is a valid clock, we shouldn't use
>> > IS_ERR_OR_NULL.
>> >
>> > Implemented as Russell King
On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 01:05:17PM +0200, Johan Hovold wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 01:00:50PM +0200, Niklas Cassel wrote:
> > Since NULL is a valid clock, we shouldn't use
> > IS_ERR_OR_NULL.
> >
> > Implemented as Russell King suggested in:
> >
> > http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20150207172949.ge
On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 01:00:50PM +0200, Niklas Cassel wrote:
> Since NULL is a valid clock, we shouldn't use
> IS_ERR_OR_NULL.
>
> Implemented as Russell King suggested in:
>
> http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20150207172949.ge8...@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk
>
> Signed-off-by: Niklas Cassel
> ---
> driv
Since NULL is a valid clock, we shouldn't use
IS_ERR_OR_NULL.
Implemented as Russell King suggested in:
http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20150207172949.ge8...@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk
Signed-off-by: Niklas Cassel
---
drivers/net/phy/micrel.c | 7 +--
1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)