Re: [PATCH 05/29] regulator: use IS_ERR_OR_NULL() instead of open-coding

[Mark Brown <broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 955 bytes --]

On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 05:57:50PM +0900, Paul Mundt wrote:
> On Thu, May 03, 2012 at 04:32:39PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> > On Thu, May 03, 2012 at 05:05:34PM +0200, Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote:

> > > -	if (regulator == NULL || IS_ERR(regulator))
> > > +	if (IS_ERR_OR_NULL(regulator))

> > The bigger question here is why we're accepting NULL in the first place.

> I'm not sure about the regulator case, but it's been useful to support
> passing NULL around in the clock framework case. There are plenty of
> cases where a struct clk is optional and if we fail to find the clock we
> just set clk to NULL and continue on without having to constantly check
> the value of the clk pointer, which helps considerably when you consider
> the number of clk_enable/disable() pairs some drivers have.

> Presumably the same applies for regulators?

This is checking the value of regulator_get(), NULL is a perfectly valid
regulator value to get passed back.

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]