On Sat, Dec 22, 2012 at 09:56:20AM +0000, Grant Likely wrote: > On Wed, 19 Dec 2012 19:39:14 +0300, Dan Carpenter <dan.carpen...@oracle.com> > wrote: > > On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 03:11:54PM +0000, Grant Likely wrote: > > > On Tue, 11 Dec 2012 16:36:27 -0800 (PST), Kuninori Morimoto > > > <kuninori.morimoto...@renesas.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > Hi > > > > > > > > > According to its documentation, clk_get() returns a "valid IS_ERR() > > > > > condition > > > > > containing errno", so we should call IS_ERR() rather than a NULL > > > > > check. > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Cyril Roelandt <tipec...@gmail.com> > > > > > > > > Acked-by: Kuninori Morimoto <kuninori.morimoto...@renesas.com> > > > > > > Applied, thanks. > > > > In another thread, we were just talking about who clk_get() can > > return a NULL if !CONFIG_HAVE_CLK. That might change to match the > > documentation later... Not sure. > > So what is the solution here? Will the dummy clk_get() be changed, or is > there more work needed on the drivers? >
This driver can't function without a clk. It should select that at build time instead of testing for it at probe. Just checking for IS_ERR() will NOT cause a NULL dereference so the patch is ok in that respect. I'm not sure if this can be build without CONFIG_HAVE_CLK. regards, dan carpenter -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
