[PATCH 1/2] [ARM] [IMX]: Removed superfluous checks for argument validity.

[vzapolskiy@gmail.com (Vladimir Zapolskiy)]

Hi Uwe,

2010/3/18 Uwe Kleine-K?nig <u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de>
>
> On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 01:34:50PM +0300, Vladimir Zapolskiy wrote:
> > Hello Uwe,
> >
> > __clk_enable() and __clk_disable() are recursive with another arguments,
> > that means it is hardly possible to remove the checks from them.
> ah, at least the check for NULL cannot go away. ?However IS_ERR(clk)
> should hardly matter, shouldn't it?
>
> Maybe the generated code is more optimal when doing:
>
> ? ? ? ?static void __clk_disable(struct clk *clk)
> ? ? ? ?{
> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?WARN_ON(!clk->usecount);
>
> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?if (clk->parent)
> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?__clk_disable(clk->parent);
>
> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?if (clk->secondary)
> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?__clk_disable(clk->secondary);
>
> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?if (!(--clk->usecount) && clk->disable)
> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?clk->disable(clk);
> ? ? ? ?}
>
> ? ? ? ?void clk_disable(struct clk *clk)
> ? ? ? ?{
> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?BUG_ON(clk == NULL || IS_ERR(clk));
> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?mutex_lock(&clocks_mutex);
> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?__clk_disable(clk);
> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?mutex_unlock(&clocks_mutex);
> ? ? ? ?}
>
> So unless the compiler optimizes well, this reduces the calls of
> __clk_disable from three to one for a clock without parent and
> secondary.
>

I hope I got your view on optimization of calls, because I just wanted
to reduce 6 LOCs with the patch :)
Anyway better to do both optimizations at the same time.

> While at it I wonder if it isn't more correct in __clk_disable to
> disable the clock first and only then parent and secondary?!
>

Looks like a reasonable assumption.

> Best regards
> Uwe
>

Best wishes,
Vladimir