From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Vivek Gautam Subject: Re: [PATCH] phy: core: Allow phy_pm_runtime_xxx API calls with NULL phy Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2018 14:17:22 +0530 Message-ID: References: <1521191452-30089-1-git-send-email-mgautam@codeaurora.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1521191452-30089-1-git-send-email-mgautam@codeaurora.org> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Manu Gautam Cc: Kishon Vijay Abraham I , linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-msm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org On 2018-03-16 14:40, Manu Gautam wrote: > phy_init() and phy_exit() calls, and phy_power_on() and > phy_power_off() already accept NULL as valid PHY refernece > and act as NOP. Extend same concept to phy runtime_pm APIs > to keep drivers (e.g. dwc3) code simple while dealing with > optional PHYs. > > Signed-off-by: Manu Gautam > --- > drivers/phy/phy-core.c | 18 ++++++++++++++++++ > 1 file changed, 18 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/drivers/phy/phy-core.c b/drivers/phy/phy-core.c > index 09ac8af..48b9615 100644 > --- a/drivers/phy/phy-core.c > +++ b/drivers/phy/phy-core.c > @@ -153,6 +153,9 @@ int phy_pm_runtime_get(struct phy *phy) > { > int ret; > > + if (!phy) > + return 0; > + > if (!pm_runtime_enabled(&phy->dev)) Were we already trying to dereference a NULL here? That shouldn't be good i guess. Kishon, do we not expect phys to be NULL here? regards Vivek