[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <201102231049.17466.jeremy.kerr@canonical.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2011 10:49:17 +0800
From: Jeremy Kerr <jeremy.kerr@...onical.com>
To: "Uwe Kleine-König"
<u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
Nicolas Pitre <nicolas.pitre@...aro.org>,
Lorenzo Pieralisi <Lorenzo.Pieralisi@....com>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
linux-sh@...r.kernel.org,
Ben Herrenchmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@...gutronix.de>,
Paul Mundt <lethal@...ux-sh.org>,
Dima Zavin <dmitriyz@...gle.com>,
Saravana Kannan <skannan@...eaurora.org>,
Ben Dooks <ben-linux@...ff.org>,
Russell King <linux@....linux.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] Add a common struct clk
Hi Uwe,
> > +static inline void clk_common_init(struct clk *clk) { }
> > +
> > +/*
> > + * For !CONFIG_USE_COMMON_STRUCT_CLK, we don't enforce any atomicity
> > + * requirements for clk_enable/clk_disable, so the prepare and unprepare
> > + * functions are no-ops
> > + */
> > +int clk_prepare(struct clk *clk) { return 0; }
> > +void clk_unprepare(struct clk *clk) { }
>
> these should be static inline. Otherwise these functions end up in many
> files and so provoke a build failure.
Ugh, brown paper bag time. Thanks for that, I'll update this patch.
Cheers,
Jeremy
--
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