On Sun, Aug 30, 2015 at 11:54:33AM -0700, walter harms wrote:
Am 30.08.2015 20:05, schrieb Julia Lawall:
if (IS_ERR(drvdata->mi2s_bit_clk[dai_id])) { dev_err(&pdev->dev, "%s() error getting mi2s-bit-clk: %ld\n",
__func__,PTR_ERR(drvdata->mi2s_bit_clk[i]));
__func__,PTR_ERR(drvdata->mi2s_bit_clk[dai_id])); return PTR_ERR(drvdata->mi2s_bit_clk[dai_id]);just a note: using a shorter name instead of drvdata->mi2s_bit_clk[dai_id] whould help to make the code more readable (yes, the other code is alike). something like:
struct clk *tmp = devm_clk_get(&pdev->dev,clk_name);
if (IS_ERR(tmp)) { dev_err(&pdev->dev,"%s() error getting mi2s-bit-clk: %ld\n",__func__, PTR_ERR(tmp)); return PTR_ERR(tmp); } drvdata->mi2s_bit_clk[dai_id]=tmp;
Yes, it would make the code more readable.
just one minor: the dev_warn() just before says: " error getting mi2s-osr-clk" may be it should be "warnig ..." That will make it more easy to rep for real error in a log.
"error [gs]etting" could be re-phrased to "could not [gs]et". The term "error" was not meant to indicate the log level, but evidently, can cause some confusion for someone reading the logs.