From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Shengjiu Wang Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2020 11:35:51 +0000 Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] ASoC: fsl_mqs: Don't check clock is NULL before calling clk API Message-Id: List-Id: References: <39ac8f24-3148-2a3d-3f8d-91567b3c4c9e@web.de> <24be48d2-63de-b900-cec7-d21e83a89ca2@web.de> In-Reply-To: <24be48d2-63de-b900-cec7-d21e83a89ca2@web.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Markus Elfring Cc: Linux-ALSA , Timur Tabi , Xiubo Li , Fabio Estevam , Shengjiu Wang , kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org, Takashi Iwai , linux-kernel , Nicolin Chen , Mark Brown , linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 4:55 PM Markus Elfring wrote: > > > clk_prepare_enable and clk_disable_unprepare check the input > > clock parameter in the beginning of the function, > > These functions call further functions which perform null pointer checks. > > > > if the parameter > > is NULL, clk_prepare_enable and clk_disable_unprepare will > > return immediately. > > The interpretation of these function implementations seems to be reasonable. > Would you like to achieve any improvements for the corresponding software documentation? Which document do you mean? > > > > So Don't need to check input clock parameters before calling clk API. > > What do you find imperative in this wording? > > Another wording alternative: > Thus omit extra null pointer checks before four function calls. > > Regards, > Markus