From: Dan Carpenter <error27@gmail.com>
To: Jerome Brunet <jbrunet@baylibre.com>
Cc: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@kernel.org>,
Brian Masney <bmasney+clk@redhat.com>,
Jerome Brunet <jbrunet+clk@baylibre.com>,
linux-clk@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] clk: Document of_clk_get_by_name() return values
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2026 10:49:18 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <aqpJ_pupkr8HDIz2@stanley.mountain> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1jzexhd58n.fsf@starbuckisacylon.baylibre.com>
On Wed, Sep 16, 2026 at 09:28:56AM +0200, Jerome Brunet wrote:
> On mar. 15 sept. 2026 at 19:38, Dan Carpenter <error27@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Callers should test the return from of_clk_get_by_name() with IS_ERR().
> > The function returns a valid clock on success and an error pointer on
> > failure; NULL is not a valid return value.
> >
> > Document this explicitly to prevent callers from treating NULL as a
> > separate failure case.
> >
> > Assisted-by: ChatGPT:gpt-5
> > Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <error27@gmail.com>
> > ---
> > There are a few other functions which look like they return NULL but
> > never actually do. This is one which has caused some confusion in
> > the past.
> >
> > drivers/clk/clk.c | 3 +++
> > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/clk/clk.c b/drivers/clk/clk.c
> > index f1756fe59372..a71bcf780de4 100644
> > --- a/drivers/clk/clk.c
> > +++ b/drivers/clk/clk.c
> > @@ -5430,6 +5430,9 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(of_clk_get);
> > * This function parses the clocks and clock-names properties,
> > * and uses them to look up the struct clk from the registered list of clock
> > * providers.
> > + *
> > + * Returns: A clock pointer on success or an error pointer on failure. This
> > + * function never returns NULL.
>
> Thanks Dan. I was about to apply the change but it feels a bit strange
> to document what a function never does.
>
> Is this a documentation that should be added everywhere the return value
> is to be tested with IS_ERR() ?
>
> What about being more direct then:
>
> "Returns: A clock pointer on success or an error pointer on failure.
> Caller should test the return value with IS_ERR()"
First of all, I just want to confirm that actually it's true, right?
I've read the code but this isn't my background so I might have been
confused.
If it only returns an error pointer then, it's obvious that it should
only be tested with IS_ERR(). I would be fine with just saying the
first part:
Returns: A clock pointer on success or an error pointer on failure
regards,
dan carpenter
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-09-16 7:49 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <cover.1789451862.git.error27@gmail.com>
2026-09-15 16:38 ` Dan Carpenter
2026-09-15 17:53 ` Dan Carpenter
2026-09-15 17:58 ` Dan Carpenter
2026-09-16 7:28 ` Jerome Brunet
2026-09-16 7:49 ` Dan Carpenter [this message]
2026-09-16 14:22 ` Jerome Brunet
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=aqpJ_pupkr8HDIz2@stanley.mountain \
--to=error27@gmail.com \
--cc=bmasney+clk@redhat.com \
--cc=jbrunet+clk@baylibre.com \
--cc=jbrunet@baylibre.com \
--cc=linux-clk@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=sboyd@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®