[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4F9696C6.1080404@mvista.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2012 16:04:22 +0400
From: Sergei Shtylyov <sshtylyov@...sta.com>
To: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...com>
CC: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
"akpm@...ux-foundation.org" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"linux@....linux.org.uk" <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
spear-devel <spear-devel@...t.st.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-ide@...r.kernel.org" <linux-ide@...r.kernel.org>,
"viresh.linux@...il.com" <viresh.linux@...il.com>,
"mturquette@...aro.org" <mturquette@...aro.org>,
"jgarzik@...hat.com" <jgarzik@...hat.com>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 4/9] ata/sata_mv: Remove conditional compilation of
clk code
Hello.
On 24-04-2012 11:05, Viresh Kumar wrote:
>> I don't think this change is correct. With the old semantics, it was:
> Sorry. :(
>> If we have CLK support, we expect there to be a clock for sata_mv, and
>> if there is no such clock, output a notice message, something is
>> probably wrong, i expected there to be a clock.
>> The new semantics are:
>> We expect there to be a clock for sata_mv, and if there is no such
>> clock, output a notice message, something is probably wrong, i
>> expected there to be a clock.
>> We are going to see this notice message much more, when it is not
>> expected.
> So, the only problem is this message?
> How do you suggest to tackle this now. Have #ifdef,#endif around this print?
When there's no CONFIG_HAVE_CLK, if clk_get() returns NULL, not error,
there'll be no message.
WBR, Sergei
--
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