Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <39ac8f24-3148-2a3d-3f8d-91567b3c4c9e@web.de> <CAA+D8APR2NGAn9jRDSZzr1fgj5u0hAvH19VxZS+tj2A7j3PCuw@mail.gmail.com>
 <24be48d2-63de-b900-cec7-d21e83a89ca2@web.de>
In-Reply-To: <24be48d2-63de-b900-cec7-d21e83a89ca2@web.de>
From:   Shengjiu Wang <shengjiu.wang@gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 23 Jun 2020 19:35:51 +0800
Message-ID: <CAA+D8AMSVCbJtcDoCbsMeV6ygrSdARpn3_PWE83mitcnkA1Tog@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] ASoC: fsl_mqs: Don't check clock is NULL before
 calling clk API
To:     Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@web.de>
Cc:     Linux-ALSA <alsa-devel@alsa-project.org>,
        linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org,
        Shengjiu Wang <shengjiu.wang@nxp.com>,
        Xiubo Li <Xiubo.Lee@gmail.com>, Timur Tabi <timur@kernel.org>,
        Takashi Iwai <tiwai@suse.com>,
        Nicolin Chen <nicoleotsuka@gmail.com>,
        Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>,
        Fabio Estevam <festevam@gmail.com>,
        kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 4:55 PM Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@web.de> 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