[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4D52FC1A.9090700@bluewatersys.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2011 09:42:02 +1300
From: Ryan Mallon <ryan@...ewatersys.com>
To: Uwe Kleine-König
<u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>
CC: Jeremy Kerr <jeremy.kerr@...onical.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
Nicolas Pitre <nicolas.pitre@...aro.org>,
Dima Zavin <dmitriyz@...gle.com>,
Lorenzo Pieralisi <Lorenzo.Pieralisi@....com>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
linux-sh@...r.kernel.org,
Ben Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@...gutronix.de>,
Paul Mundt <lethal@...ux-sh.org>,
Saravana Kannan <skannan@...eaurora.org>,
Ben Dooks <ben-linux@...ff.org>,
Russell King <linux@....linux.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [RFC,PATCH 1/3] Add a common struct clk
On 02/10/2011 09:39 AM, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> Hi Ryan,
>
> On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 09:21:14AM +1300, Ryan Mallon wrote:
>>> +int clk_enable(struct clk *clk)
>>> +{
>>> + unsigned long flags;
>>> + int ret = 0;
>>> +
>>> + spin_lock_irqsave(&clk->enable_lock, flags);
>>
>> WARN_ON(clk->prepare_count == 0); ?
> This is added in patch 3/3
Ah, missed that. I still think that patch 3 should just be rolled into
patch 1. I don't see why we should add a new file in one patch and then
randomly add some warning code to it in another patch. It makes
reviewing harder for one thing :-).
~Ryan
--
Bluewater Systems Ltd - ARM Technology Solution Centre
Ryan Mallon 5 Amuri Park, 404 Barbadoes St
ryan@...ewatersys.com PO Box 13 889, Christchurch 8013
http://www.bluewatersys.com New Zealand
Phone: +64 3 3779127 Freecall: Australia 1800 148 751
Fax: +64 3 3779135 USA 1800 261 2934
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists