On 2/20/23 13:42, Michal Suchánek wrote:
On Mon, Feb 20, 2023 at 10:57:17AM -0500, Sean Anderson wrote:
On 2/20/23 05:46, Michal Suchánek wrote:
On Sun, Feb 19, 2023 at 11:59:34PM -0600, Samuel Holland wrote:
Some clk uclass functions, such as devm_clk_get() and clk_get_parent(), return error pointers. clk_valid() should not consider these pointers to be valid.
Fixes: 8a1661f20e6c ("drivers: clk: Handle gracefully NULL pointers") Signed-off-by: Samuel Holland samuel@sholland.org
include/clk.h | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/include/clk.h b/include/clk.h index d91285235f7..4acb878ec6d 100644 --- a/include/clk.h +++ b/include/clk.h @@ -671,7 +671,7 @@ static inline bool clk_dev_binded(struct clk *clk) */ static inline bool clk_valid(struct clk *clk) {
- return clk && !!clk->dev;
- return clk && !IS_ERR(clk) && !!clk->dev; } int soc_clk_dump(void);
Maybe it would be better to avoid the error pointers instead, there should not be that many places where they are returned.
This not quite the right way to phrase this. Instead, I would ask: where are places where the return value is not checked correctly? It's perfectly
Pretty much everywhere where clk_get_parent is used outside of core code absolutely no error checking is done.
There are 105 uses of ERR_PTR in drivers/clk, mostly in CCF clock registration functions. There is also devm_clk_get() with about 30 callers. Those mostly seem to have reasonable error checking; the error pointer ends up as the driver probe function's return value via PTR_ERR.
fine to pass NULL or uninitialized clocks to other clock functions, but it's not OK to ignore errors.
Is there some documentation on what is the distinction, specifically?
If there isn't it's meaningless and NULL can be returned on error simplifying the code, thinking about the code, debugging, pretty much everything.
What should I do for v2? Keep this patch? Convert clk_get_parent() to return NULL instead of ERR_PTR, and hope nobody uses clk_valid() on the pointer returned from devm_clk_get()?
Regards, Samuel