[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1609061635000.5647@nanos>
Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2016 16:36:25 +0200 (CEST)
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: Fu Wei <fu.wei@...aro.org>
cc: rjw@...ysocki.net, lenb@...nel.org, daniel.lezcano@...aro.org,
marc.zyngier@....com, lorenzo.pieralisi@....com,
sudeep.holla@....com, hanjun.guo@...aro.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linaro-acpi@...ts.linaro.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org,
rruigrok@...eaurora.org, harba@...eaurora.org, cov@...eaurora.org,
timur@...eaurora.org, graeme.gregory@...aro.org,
al.stone@...aro.org, jcm@...hat.com, wei@...hat.com, arnd@...db.de,
wim@...ana.be, catalin.marinas@....com, will.deacon@....com,
Suravee.Suthikulpanit@....com, leo.duran@....com,
linux@...ck-us.net, linux-watchdog@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v11 5/8] clocksource/drivers/arm_arch_timer: Simplify
ACPI support code.
On Tue, 6 Sep 2016, fu.wei@...aro.org wrote:
> + if (timer_count < 0)
> + pr_err("Failed to get platform timer info, skipping.\n");
So this prints something about skipping. But then it continues as if
nothing went wrong. That's either wrong or confusing or both.
> - arch_timer_init();
> - return 0;
> + return arch_timer_init();
Thanks,
tglx
Powered by blists - more mailing lists