From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753594AbcHZT2g (ORCPT ); Fri, 26 Aug 2016 15:28:36 -0400 Received: from smtp.codeaurora.org ([198.145.29.96]:54280 "EHLO smtp.codeaurora.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751223AbcHZT2f (ORCPT ); Fri, 26 Aug 2016 15:28:35 -0400 Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2016 12:28:33 -0700 From: Stephen Boyd To: Michael Turquette Cc: Masahiro Yamada , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-clk@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] clk: Simplify __of_clk_get_hw_from_provider() Message-ID: <20160826192833.GA19826@codeaurora.org> References: <20160825203536.27235-1-sboyd@codeaurora.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20160825203536.27235-1-sboyd@codeaurora.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 08/25, Stephen Boyd wrote: > __of_clk_get_hw_from_provider() is confusing because it will > return EPROBE_DEFER if there isn't a ->get() or ->get_hw() > function pointer in a provider. That's just a bug though, and we > used to NULL pointer exception when ->get() was missing anyway, > so let's make this more obvious that they're not optional. The > assumption is that most providers will implement ->get_hw() so we > only fallback to the ->get() function if necessary. This > clarifies the intent and removes any possibility of probe defer > happening if clk providers are buggy. > > Reported-by: Masahiro Yamada > Signed-off-by: Stephen Boyd > --- Applied to clk-next -- Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project