[PATCH 16/17] clk: Detect failure to set defaults

[Sean Anderson]

On 5/10/21 12:28 PM, Simon Glass wrote:
> Hi Sean,
> 
> On Sat, 8 May 2021 at 18:40, Sean Anderson <seanga2 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 5/8/21 6:00 PM, Simon Glass wrote:
>>> When the default clocks cannot be set, the clock is silently probed and
>>> the error is ignored. This is incorrect, since having the clocks at the
>>> correct speed may be important for operation of the system.
>>>
>>> Fix it by checking the return code.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg at chromium.org>
>>> ---
>>>
>>>    drivers/clk/clk-uclass.c | 6 +++++-
>>>    1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/clk/clk-uclass.c b/drivers/clk/clk-uclass.c
>>> index 4ab3c402ed8..2a2e1cfbd61 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/clk/clk-uclass.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/clk/clk-uclass.c
>>> @@ -796,13 +796,17 @@ void devm_clk_put(struct udevice *dev, struct clk *clk)
>>>
>>>    int clk_uclass_post_probe(struct udevice *dev)
>>>    {
>>> +     int ret;
>>> +
>>>        /*
>>>         * when a clock provider is probed. Call clk_set_defaults()
>>>         * also after the device is probed. This takes care of cases
>>>         * where the DT is used to setup default parents and rates
>>>         * using assigned-clocks
>>>         */
>>> -     clk_set_defaults(dev, 1);
>>> +     ret = clk_set_defaults(dev, 1);
>>> +     if (ret)
>>> +             return log_ret(ret);
>>>
>>>        return 0;
>>>    }
>>>
>>
>> See also: https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/uboot/patch/20210409021313.433558-2-seanga2@gmail.com/
> 
> So which should we do? My feeling is that a failure that is
> programmatically silent could cause things to fail, but is there a
> reason why this might be wrong but everything is still OK?

I think both are fine. I think this is definitely a situation where we
should complain loudly so that when things break there is some relevant
output.

--Sean

> 
> Regards,
> Simon
> 
>> Reviewed-by: Sean Anderson <seanga2 at gmail.com>