Subject: [PATCH v3] clk: let clk_disable() return immediately if clk is NULL

From: [email-masked] (Stephen Boyd)
Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2016 16:11:25 -0700

On 09/16, Masahiro Yamada wrote:
> Hi Stephen, Michael,
> 
> 2016-08-26 0:27 GMT+09:00 Florian Fainelli <[email-masked]>:
> > On 08/24/2016 10:26 AM, Masahiro Yamada wrote:
> >> Many of clk_disable() implementations just return for NULL pointer,
> >> but this check is missing from some.  Let's make it tree-wide
> >> consistent.  It will allow clock consumers to call clk_disable()
> >> without NULL pointer check.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada <[email-masked]>
> >> Acked-by: Greg Ungerer <[email-masked]>
> >> Acked-by: Wan Zongshun <[email-masked]>
> >> ---
> >>
> >> I came back after a long pause.
> >> You can see the discussion about the previous version:
> >> https://www.linux-mips.org/archives/linux-mips/2016-04/msg00063.html
> >>
> >>
> >> Changes in v3:
> >>   - Return only when clk is NULL.  Do not take care of error pointer.
> >>
> >> Changes in v2:
> >>   - Rebase on Linux 4.6-rc1
> >>
> >>  arch/arm/mach-mmp/clock.c        | 3 +++
> >>  arch/arm/mach-w90x900/clock.c    | 3 +++
> >>  arch/blackfin/mach-bf609/clock.c | 3 +++
> >>  arch/m68k/coldfire/clk.c         | 4 ++++
> >>  arch/mips/bcm63xx/clk.c          | 3 +++
> >
> 
> 
> Gentle ping...
> 
> 
> If you are not keen on this,
> shall I split it per-arch and send to each arch subsystem?
> 

If we get acks from more arch maintainers we could take it
through clk tree, but we really don't maintain these other clk
implementations so it isn't very appropriate to take it through
clk tree anyway. Perhaps splitting it up per arch and sending it
that way and then Ccing akpm (aka the patch collector) would make
sure things get merged in a timely manner. Or Andrew could just
pick up this patch as is.

-- 
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum,
a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project