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_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, 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 C28D0C33C9E for ; Tue, 7 Jan 2020 09:44:37 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 98B202081E for ; Tue, 7 Jan 2020 09:44:37 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=baylibre-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com header.i=@baylibre-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com header.b="UvCZv6je" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727698AbgAGJog (ORCPT ); Tue, 7 Jan 2020 04:44:36 -0500 Received: from mail-wm1-f68.google.com ([209.85.128.68]:52771 "EHLO mail-wm1-f68.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727084AbgAGJog (ORCPT ); Tue, 7 Jan 2020 04:44:36 -0500 Received: by mail-wm1-f68.google.com with SMTP id p9so18184724wmc.2 for ; Tue, 07 Jan 2020 01:44:34 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=baylibre-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=references:user-agent:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:date :message-id:mime-version; bh=4P9Czn9hAV4qLhQS6rqwFS/Mp4FZnmQh9QMIhhN4nIk=; b=UvCZv6je/aScOvdTEJw3xfnpdGmOs0ESmX5w/vY9S12hFr7FwLR+XOZeSAqUAuMN/+ MQOpTW6rqlveJiHFbzphuz21FwzHgVW+eniqtZpiAs/pmnaIzXhFWNRTDaI3yGD/THF2 ko3+wOFjXOch+CiMqfn6AiWZE4u7ckcNeRHEYSst3Oi0TP7Fe8jDfch2du1Xw4A2avge lugIMiHUEXE+xiuj4iFgqE6BpSXGw1UQJlA9loMQJUl0wgee2dVieIk0iFScqX4Ag76k JtUIoGfDTk13o+pm7BsJXucwAwFVWJx1coOc/WWsRD5DeF+n/+rm6gZQHbBZULTjJqL+ ZuUQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:references:user-agent:from:to:cc:subject :in-reply-to:date:message-id:mime-version; bh=4P9Czn9hAV4qLhQS6rqwFS/Mp4FZnmQh9QMIhhN4nIk=; b=riHEa/xh5GaAn7atA6MKBdYS+DhxcetUbY25iwizQR0fhh5m7LMR1uI3nXJxNwYY3Y 69oVUb7eAhs9+dsOWTPGJSXoa7yOdacoToxH3MDnPmSec6LBsumEBLU9gQWIgdn7FPw7 l2+ozzgo8UCOfYY4gb7X789fZAL9fWe1SXDAf46v2mCONVbE5PDXINf2B4QD8SkGvfRN FdVovpzMsaHdEEmec7luISTl4eNB5eejzMJD48RRR6nWvwGxLxFPf1pMjxa1TZc4Po4n yz1yfksL9YiDpvonSnY5PN8DEX8M1bRrJRKSdEFYXQsL0BsjiMUE4Q0UDAoaH70kdfrn Zx9g== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVoDTvakrGB+AAqCaswCLOlc3t933oVTqNqww2xOLS/wWSh1eBQ vqoPFbWdy9esiMbk7JYy+eH2CQ== X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqyCezd+1+4EguOZgfPFmGtssceuvsfa1PvQEaRtjcKlGyU2HHUJRAHP29eAu6WsdAH3N7GkKw== X-Received: by 2002:a7b:cd11:: with SMTP id f17mr39883345wmj.48.1578390274029; Tue, 07 Jan 2020 01:44:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (laubervilliers-658-1-213-31.w90-63.abo.wanadoo.fr. [90.63.244.31]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id z83sm26328213wmg.2.2020.01.07.01.44.33 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Tue, 07 Jan 2020 01:44:33 -0800 (PST) References: <20191001174439.182435-1-sboyd@kernel.org> <1jd0ffr1jh.fsf@starbuckisacylon.baylibre.com> <20200105075050.1B93E20866@mail.kernel.org> <20200105075556.60E1A20848@mail.kernel.org> User-agent: mu4e 1.3.3; emacs 26.3 From: Jerome Brunet To: Stephen Boyd Cc: Michael Turquette , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-clk@vger.kernel.org, Douglas Anderson , Heiko Stuebner Subject: Re: [PATCH] clk: Don't cache errors from clk_ops::get_phase() In-reply-to: <20200105075556.60E1A20848@mail.kernel.org> Date: Tue, 07 Jan 2020 10:44:32 +0100 Message-ID: <1jblrfsirj.fsf@starbuckisacylon.baylibre.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sun 05 Jan 2020 at 08:55, Stephen Boyd wrote: > Quoting Stephen Boyd (2020-01-04 23:50:49) >> >> Quoting Jerome Brunet (2019-10-02 01:31:46) >> > > >> > > + clk_core_get_phase(core); >> > >> > Should the error be checked here as well ? >> >> What error? >> > > Ah the error when clk_ops::get_phase() returns an error? I guess we > should just silently ignore it to maintain the previous behavior? Indeed, that's the previous behavior so we can keep it. I'm just not a fan of silently ignoring errors. These choices tend to come back to haunt us ... > Or we > can bail out of clk registration. Seems low risk to do that in another > patch. Why not, or at least a warning so we get a hint that something is wrong.