Re: [PATCH v2] pwm: improve args checking in pwm_apply_state()

From: Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@gmail.com>
To: Brian Norris <briannorris@chromium.org>
Cc: Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@free-electrons.com>,
	Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>,
	Linux PWM List <linux-pwm@vger.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Brian Norris <computersforpeace@gmail.com>,
	Doug Anderson <dianders@chromium.org>,
	linux-renesas-soc@vger.kernel.org,
	Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@ideasonboard.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] pwm: improve args checking in pwm_apply_state()
Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2016 18:55:08 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160623165508.GA20051@ulmo.ba.sec> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20160622204647.GA14996@google.com>

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 987 bytes --]

On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 01:46:48PM -0700, Brian Norris wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 10:41:14PM +0200, Boris Brezillon wrote:
> > On Wed, 22 Jun 2016 12:16:59 -0700
> > Brian Norris <briannorris@chromium.org> wrote:
> > > Notably, you're dropping the 'if (!pwm) { }' safety checks that are part
> > > of pwm_disable() and pwm_set_polarity(). But I don't think there should
> > > be any users relying on that.
> > 
> > Indeed. I can add it back here if you prefer,
> 
> Nah, that's ok. I just had to say it anyway :)
> 
> > but honestly, PWM users
> > that are not checking the value returned by pwm_get() should be
> > considered buggy IMHO, and a NULL pointer exception is a good way to
> > make people realize they are not properly using the API :).
> 
> Seems OK.

I've applied this to my fixes branch, and I'll let it cook in linux-next
for a little while, then send it off to Linus for v4.7-rc6 next week if
no further fallout is caused by this.

Thierry

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 819 bytes --]