From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Florian Fainelli Subject: Re: [PATCH] net: qcom/emac: don't try to claim clocks on ACPI systems Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2016 14:02:15 -0800 Message-ID: References: <1481658930-565-1-git-send-email-timur@codeaurora.org> <58506E00.9040801@codeaurora.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Timur Tabi , David Miller , netdev@vger.kernel.org, Christopher Covington , alokc@codeaurora.org Return-path: Received: from mail-pg0-f65.google.com ([74.125.83.65]:34313 "EHLO mail-pg0-f65.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753904AbcLMWCU (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 Dec 2016 17:02:20 -0500 Received: by mail-pg0-f65.google.com with SMTP id e9so61292pgc.1 for ; Tue, 13 Dec 2016 14:02:20 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <58506E00.9040801@codeaurora.org> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 12/13/2016 01:54 PM, Timur Tabi wrote: > On 12/13/2016 03:46 PM, Florian Fainelli wrote: >> Is there a reason why the check is not moved down inwo >> emac_clks_phase{1,2}_init functions? Do you anticipate other >> ACPI-related changes in the future that would warrant having this check >> moved at a higher level? > > No, this is the last ACPI-related change that I expect. I could move > the check into those functions, but I don't see how that's any different > than what I'm doing now. My way avoids calling a function altogether, > your way calls into a function only to have it return immediately. > > But I don't have any strong feelings either way. I will change it if > you want me to. No strong feelings either, it just seems easier and safer to move the check down in the function and make it return success rather than potentially affecting the error path within the caller of emac_clks_phase{1,2}_init here. -- Florian