Hi Jerome & Stephen,

On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 12:06 PM, Jerome Brunet [off-list ref] wrote:

On Mon, 2017-12-18 at 11:03 -0800, Stephen Boyd wrote:

quoted

On 12/18, Jerome Brunet wrote:

quoted

Nothing really prevents a provider from (trying to) register a clock
without providing the clock ops structure.

We do check the individual fields before using them, but not the
structure pointer itself. This may have the usual nasty consequences when
the pointer is dereferenced, mostly likely when checking one the field
during the initialization.

Yes, that nasty consequence should be a kernel oops,

Precisely

quoted

and the
developer should notice that before submitting the driver for
inclusion.

Agreed. But people may make mistakes, which is why (at least partly) we
do checks, isn't it ?

Agreed the developers should test before submitting, but procedurally
generated clocks (e.g. registering clocks in a loop using a
predictable register map, etc) could lead to a situation where a
developer doesn't test every possible iteration.

Hypothetical, but easy easy easy to fix with Jerome's patch.

quoted

I don't think we really care to return an error here
if this happens.

I don't understand why we would let a oops happen when can catch the error
properly ?

Agreed with Jerome on this one.

Let's flip it on its head: any downside to this patch? If not I can merge.

Regards,
Mike