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 <[email protected]> > Signed-off-by: Stephen Boyd <[email protected]> > ---
Applied to clk-next -- Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project
