Hi

On Mon, 2 May 2011, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:

This does bring us to an interesting question though: should clk_set_rate()
succeed or fail with a NULL clk?  There is no clock to control, so my
feeling is that it should fail, just like clk_get_rate() should return
zero because the rate is meaningless.  There is no rate to get and no
rate to set.

Returning an error would be my preference when a NULL or bogus clock 
pointer is passed to any clk_* operation, especially since those 
operations will need to dereference the clock pointer.


- Paul