[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150127101322.GD32121@gradator.net>
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2015 11:13:22 +0100
From: Sylvain Rochet <sylvain.rochet@...secur.com>
To: Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@...e-electrons.com>
Cc: Wenyou Yang <wenyou.yang@...el.com>, nicolas.ferre@...el.com,
linux@....linux.org.uk, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, peda@...ntia.se,
sergei.shtylyov@...entembedded.com, linux@...im.org.za
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 07/13] pm: at91: remove the config item
CONFIG_AT91_SLOW_CLOCK
Hi,
On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 11:07:42AM +0100, Alexandre Belloni wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 27/01/2015 at 10:55:15 +0100, Sylvain Rochet wrote :
> > Hello Wenyou,
> >
> > On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 01:57:27PM +0800, Wenyou Yang wrote:
> > >
> > > static void __init at91_pm_init(void)
> > > {
> > > -#ifdef CONFIG_AT91_SLOW_CLOCK
> > > at91_pm_sram_init();
> > > -#endif
> > >
> > > pr_info("AT91: Power Management%s\n", (slow_clock ? " (with slow clock mode)" : ""));
> >
> > Details, but the ternary operation can be removed here, slow_clock now
> > defines whether we have PM support at all, not whether we have
> > slow_clock mode available.
> >
> > Maybe we should not even display this message on the console if we
> > failed to allocate sram for slow_clock, we already fired a message
> > saying that PM is not available at all in at91_pm_sram_init().
>
> That is done in patch 10/13.
Indeed… I missed that because 10/13 is a rename patch, this should be
done here IMHO :)
Sylvain
--
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