16 Dec
2021
16 Dec
'21
6:02 a.m.
On Thu, Dec 16, 2021 at 11:37:34AM +0800, Trevor Wu wrote:
On Wed, 2021-12-15 at 16:20 +0800, Tzung-Bi Shih wrote:
On Wed, Dec 15, 2021 at 02:58:34PM +0800, Trevor Wu wrote:
@@ -1072,6 +1119,19 @@ static int mt8195_mt6359_rt1011_rt5682_dev_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) return -EINVAL; }
- priv->i2so1_mclk = devm_clk_get(&pdev->dev, "i2so1_mclk");
- if (IS_ERR(priv->i2so1_mclk)) {
ret = PTR_ERR(priv->i2so1_mclk);if (ret == -ENOENT) {dev_dbg(&pdev->dev,"Failed to get i2so1_mclk, deferprobe\n");
return -EPROBE_DEFER;}Does devm_clk_get_optional() could make the block more concise?
Even though we use devm_clk_get_optional, we still have to handle the (-ENOENT) case in probe function. In my opinion, original implementation could be kept.
I am neutral to my original suggestion but devm_clk_get_optional() returns NULL if -ENONENT.