Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Tue, 20 Nov 2018 15:26:19 +0200
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
To:     Uwe =?iso-8859-1?Q?Kleine-K=F6nig?= 
        <u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de>
Cc:     Phil Edworthy <phil.edworthy@renesas.com>,
        Stephen Boyd <sboyd@kernel.org>,
        Michael Turquette <mturquette@baylibre.com>,
        Russell King <linux@armlinux.org.uk>,
        linux-clk@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-renesas-soc@vger.kernel.org,
        Greg Ungerer <gerg@linux-m68k.org>,
        Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>,
        Ralf Baechle <ralf@linux-mips.org>,
        Paul Burton <paul.burton@mips.com>,
        James Hogan <jhogan@kernel.org>,
        Jiaxun Yang <jiaxun.yang@flygoat.com>,
        Huacai Chen <chenhc@lemote.com>, Guan Xuetao <gxt@pku.edu.cn>,
        linux-m68k@lists.linux-m68k.org, linux-mips@linux-mips.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] clk: Add (devm_)clk_get_optional() functions
Message-ID: <20181120132619.GY10650@smile.fi.intel.com>
References: <20181119141259.11992-1-phil.edworthy@renesas.com>
 <20181120103832.GV10650@smile.fi.intel.com>
 <20181120125652.afk2rltmnunfo346@pengutronix.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <20181120125652.afk2rltmnunfo346@pengutronix.de>
Organization: Intel Finland Oy - BIC 0357606-4 - Westendinkatu 7, 02160 Espoo
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Nov 20, 2018 at 01:56:52PM +0100, Uwe Kleine-K?nig wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 20, 2018 at 12:38:33PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 19, 2018 at 02:12:59PM +0000, Phil Edworthy wrote:
> > > +	if (clk == ERR_PTR(-ENOENT))
> > > +		return NULL;
> > > +	else
> > > +		return clk;
> > 
> > return clk == ERR_PTR(-ENOENT) ? NULL : clk;
> > 
> > ?
> 
> Not sure this adds to the readability of the expression. Personally I
> prefer the explicit if. Maybe even:
> 
> 	clk = clk_get(...);
> 
> 	if (clk == ERR_PTR(-ENOENT))
> 		clk = NULL;
> 
> 	return clk;

So, it almost repeats the initial variant.
I'm fine with no 'else' in initial code, like

if (...)
	return NULL;

return clk;


-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko