[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120906071514.GM26594@pengutronix.de>
Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2012 09:15:14 +0200
From: Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@...gutronix.de>
To: Benoît Thébaudeau
<benoit.thebaudeau@...ansee.com>
Cc: HACHIMI Samir <shachimi@...neo-embedded.com>,
shawn guo <shawn.guo@...aro.org>,
thierry reding <thierry.reding@...onic-design.de>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel@...gutronix.de,
Philipp Zabel <p.zabel@...gutronix.de>,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 7/8] pwm i.MX: fix clock lookup
On Wed, Sep 05, 2012 at 11:48:51PM +0200, Benoît Thébaudeau wrote:
> >
> > - c = clk_get_rate(imx->clk);
> > + c = clk_get_rate(imx->clk_per);
> > c = c * period_ns;
> > do_div(c, 1000000000);
> > period_cycles = c;
> > @@ -160,8 +161,15 @@ static int imx_pwm_config(struct pwm_chip *chip,
> > struct pwm_device *pwm, int duty_ns, int period_ns)
> > {
> > struct imx_chip *imx = to_imx_chip(chip);
> > + int ret;
> >
> > - return imx->config(chip, pwm, duty_ns, period_ns);
> > + clk_prepare_enable(imx->clk_ipg);
>
> Why don't you test the return value like in imx_pwm_enable()?
Will do next time.
Sascha
>
> I have reviewed the whole series. Apart from the comments I made, it looks good
> to me.
Thanks. I can take this as a reviewed-by, right?
Sascha
--
Pengutronix e.K. | |
Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ |
Peiner Str. 6-8, 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0 |
Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 |
--
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