[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130207185742.11471.19037@quantum>
Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2013 10:57:42 -0800
From: Mike Turquette <mturquette@...aro.org>
To: Peter De Schrijver <pdeschrijver@...dia.com>,
<pdeschrijver@...dia.com>
Cc: Stephen Warren <swarren@...dia.com>,
Prashant Gaikwad <pgaikwad@...dia.com>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] clk: tegra: Implement locking for super clock
Quoting Peter De Schrijver (2013-02-07 08:24:14)
> Although tegra_clk_register_super_mux() has a lock parameter, the lock is not
> actually used by the code. Fixed with this patch.
>
> Signed-off-by: Peter De Schrijver <pdeschrijver@...dia.com>
> ---
> drivers/clk/tegra/clk-super.c | 18 +++++++++++++++---
> 1 files changed, 15 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/clk/tegra/clk-super.c b/drivers/clk/tegra/clk-super.c
> index 7ad48a8..2fd924d 100644
> --- a/drivers/clk/tegra/clk-super.c
> +++ b/drivers/clk/tegra/clk-super.c
> @@ -73,7 +73,12 @@ static int clk_super_set_parent(struct clk_hw *hw, u8 index)
> {
> struct tegra_clk_super_mux *mux = to_clk_super_mux(hw);
> u32 val, state;
> + int err = 0;
> u8 parent_index, shift;
> + unsigned long flags = 0;
I don't think initializing flags to zero is necessary but it is not a
big deal. Is gcc throwing a warning? Otherwise:
Acked-by: Mike Turquette <mturquette@...aro.org>
Regards,
Mike
--
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