On Sat, Mar 04, 2023 at 01:58:17PM -0600, Samuel Holland wrote:
On 2/20/23 04:39, Michal Suchánek wrote:
On Sun, Feb 19, 2023 at 11:59:36PM -0600, Samuel Holland wrote:
Do not return both NULL and error pointers. The function is only documented as returning error pointers.
Fixes: 8a1661f20e6c ("drivers: clk: Handle gracefully NULL pointers") Signed-off-by: Samuel Holland samuel@sholland.org
drivers/clk/clk-uclass.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/clk/clk-uclass.c b/drivers/clk/clk-uclass.c index 78299dbceb2..5bce976b060 100644 --- a/drivers/clk/clk-uclass.c +++ b/drivers/clk/clk-uclass.c @@ -490,7 +490,7 @@ struct clk *clk_get_parent(struct clk *clk)
debug("%s(clk=%p)\n", __func__, clk); if (!clk_valid(clk))
return NULL;
return ERR_PTR(-ENODEV);pdev = dev_get_parent(clk->dev); if (!pdev)
Do we really need this?
Who cares about the distinction?
Just returning NULL on any error makes the code so much simpler and easier to understand.
I'm fine with returning only NULL, or only ERR_PTR(-ENODEV) as done later in the function, but returning both makes the error handling in callers more complicated for no benefit. It sounds like you would prefer I change the later ERR_PTR(-ENODEV) to NULL instead of this change? I can do that for v2.
I think NULL is easier to check, and so long as there is no meaningful distinction between ERR_PTR and NULL we should converge towards NULL as the single error return value.
Thanks
Michal