[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5113FCE2.5030705@wwwdotorg.org>
Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2013 12:13:38 -0700
From: Stephen Warren <swarren@...dotorg.org>
To: Mike Turquette <mturquette@...aro.org>
CC: Peter De Schrijver <pdeschrijver@...dia.com>,
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
On 02/07/2013 11:57 AM, Mike Turquette wrote:
> 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>
I've applied this to Tegra's for-3.9/soc-ccf-fixes branch. If you want
to repost given Mike's comments, I can take an updated version.
--
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