On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 10:25:37AM +0000, Phil Edworthy wrote:

Hi Stephen,

On 30 November 2018 09:09 Stephen Boyd wrote:

quoted

Quoting Phil Edworthy (2018-11-20 06:14:45)

quoted

This adds clk_get_optional() and devm_clk_get_optional() functions to
get optional clocks.
They behave the same as (devm_)clk_get except where there is no clock
producer. In this case, instead of returning -ENOENT, the function
returns NULL. This makes error checking simpler and allows
clk_prepare_enable, etc to be called on the returned reference without
additional checks.

Ok. I guess that works by virtue of how -ENOENT is returned by various
functions that are called deeper in the clk_get() path? I'm cautiously
optimistic. So cautious, we should probably add a comment to these optional
functions that indicate they rely on the functions they call to return -ENOENT
under the various conditions that make a clk optional.

Yes, it does indeed rely on how clk_get() is implemented.
Specifically, that if __of_clk_get_by_name() returns -EINVAL, the error is
superseded by clk_get_sys() returning -ENOENT.
As you say, a comment may help here.

Each time the question of the optional clk_get() stuff comes up, we go
around the same discussions time and time again.  So far, each time
has ended up flopping.

Yes, clk_get() can only ever return -ENOENT if it falls back to the
non-DT methods, because it assumes that the clk tables are complete
(it can do nothing else.)

I don't think it needs a comment because it's obvious from the code
and also from the implementation point of view.

quoted

quoted

+static inline struct clk *clk_get_optional(struct device *dev, const
+char *id)

Any kernel doc for this function?

I took my cue from the surrounding functions, let me know if I have to add it.

I don't see you need to - this is an internal function by way of the
"static inline" you have before it.  It's not an API function.

-- 
RMK's Patch system: http://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/
FTTC broadband for 0.8mile line in suburbia: sync at 12.1Mbps down 622kbps up
According to speedtest.net: 11.9Mbps down 500kbps up

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel