From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.8 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED, DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 80D1EC433E0 for ; Tue, 23 Jun 2020 11:37:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.ozlabs.org (lists.ozlabs.org [203.11.71.2]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E999920724 for ; Tue, 23 Jun 2020 11:37:56 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="HyMlCpMD" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org E999920724 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=gmail.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linuxppc-dev-bounces+linuxppc-dev=archiver.kernel.org@lists.ozlabs.org Received: from bilbo.ozlabs.org (lists.ozlabs.org [IPv6:2401:3900:2:1::3]) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 49rkmL5Y0JzDqTZ for ; Tue, 23 Jun 2020 21:37:54 +1000 (AEST) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; spf=pass (sender SPF authorized) smtp.mailfrom=gmail.com (client-ip=2607:f8b0:4864:20::842; helo=mail-qt1-x842.google.com; envelope-from=shengjiu.wang@gmail.com; receiver=) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=gmail.com Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=20161025 header.b=HyMlCpMD; dkim-atps=neutral Received: from mail-qt1-x842.google.com (mail-qt1-x842.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::842]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 49rkkJ4fPSzDqSV for ; Tue, 23 Jun 2020 21:36:06 +1000 (AEST) Received: by mail-qt1-x842.google.com with SMTP id j10so6462442qtq.11 for ; Tue, 23 Jun 2020 04:36:06 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=4pFgJBI5OCUGefSIcYA75cTva8JFYmUiXoqYx+WyG9c=; b=HyMlCpMDocjfKKBdCi+o40gBFKbEJLUZrOAhvFFx4oLGKFgYQ+huI9As79YT6CAjOa z2C/Xdl9JZ0KjIxf0z+fW6ABlByiQ5bya+k/eGUH/aF4IHdwR1bTNNip68uuIJe7WlpH YMSHIlyZqfTwCdwD010jH6B7e3ALpCGY4ELBk3/yM9GQQH47+gIQ0ImwuYYE2D+5Njhv 0ym+2XuFqxH3sJwOokUV7b1thTP7Nbqy0B6kLt7X61WBzB3zDn8HOkMNTidrlrHhGmhe bjqpiyKJ8IZ+hJ6oXMGZZc8CVPLZSl1qwaaUZry6fOksDMILHtAjkq1qVnFnpIWu5FzY mlBw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=4pFgJBI5OCUGefSIcYA75cTva8JFYmUiXoqYx+WyG9c=; b=Y6bgb5oNsBdEIRlwVfNVoWRKriQek08pTIhuA8Tpzuc2qYQ39Zc5IdtVybSXN53OP9 qtpIdBq2QwSg4WrXL53fg/QlBu8PDTt6/khWi0WjbX/eEHO5BH9eu1pXz5a5hxBc8Hla a0Ka5kChilQNMP4qSMPlVFDeGPfvRH430RlG2odOoQUABMDrAUG5f8k//LDgsKyDwwhY IXKVh5+c+mwhh1sm3tUtb1+1roK/T4sf+o+JkWUna5PdOPrarz8/58LZ8ydf8kJUmgzb TctHpajzLIiwYZTXBwEaDLO7BddzEeIHFAE4kfrpYFnSz7X1TgTWMMMY2AC2VkLQ0M5M 7bdw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530rwqvkuaARbVUW2oSO6sjqfu2GdwULGK7uZ7yuQMnaQfQ9h5M3 jwnv+y1+8q36CW+9p8WsyEJOvk0LvA7GedHAd5c= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxO61T03lcfmOJXo9ryxEyKF6k7r6xNQ5tVWce+sBxYQ2LVJuylLY2ZNsYXy4zLvna194XXAG3+GxjVNzCv12s= X-Received: by 2002:ac8:41c6:: with SMTP id o6mr15036092qtm.292.1592912162502; Tue, 23 Jun 2020 04:36:02 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <39ac8f24-3148-2a3d-3f8d-91567b3c4c9e@web.de> <24be48d2-63de-b900-cec7-d21e83a89ca2@web.de> In-Reply-To: <24be48d2-63de-b900-cec7-d21e83a89ca2@web.de> From: Shengjiu Wang Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2020 19:35:51 +0800 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] ASoC: fsl_mqs: Don't check clock is NULL before calling clk API To: Markus Elfring Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-BeenThere: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: Linux-ALSA , Timur Tabi , Xiubo Li , Fabio Estevam , Shengjiu Wang , kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org, Takashi Iwai , linux-kernel , Nicolin Chen , Mark Brown , linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org Errors-To: linuxppc-dev-bounces+linuxppc-dev=archiver.kernel.org@lists.ozlabs.org Sender: "Linuxppc-dev" On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 4:55 PM Markus Elfring wrote: > > > clk_prepare_enable and clk_disable_unprepare check the input > > clock parameter in the beginning of the function, > > These functions call further functions which perform null pointer checks. > > > > if the parameter > > is NULL, clk_prepare_enable and clk_disable_unprepare will > > return immediately. > > The interpretation of these function implementations seems to be reasonable. > Would you like to achieve any improvements for the corresponding software documentation? Which document do you mean? > > > > So Don't need to check input clock parameters before calling clk API. > > What do you find imperative in this wording? > > Another wording alternative: > Thus omit extra null pointer checks before four function calls. > > Regards, > Markus