[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <562691D7.30602@pengutronix.de>
Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2015 21:11:19 +0200
From: Marc Kleine-Budde <mkl@...gutronix.de>
To: "Anton.Glukhov" <anton.a.glukhov@...il.com>,
linux-can@...r.kernel.org
Cc: hs@...x.de, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] net, can, ti_hecc: fix a run time warn_on.
On 10/20/2015 06:30 PM, Anton.Glukhov wrote:
>>> + clk_disable_unprepare(priv->clk);
>>> + priv->clk = NULL;
>>> res = platform_get_resource(pdev, IORESOURCE_MEM, 0);
>>> iounmap(priv->base);
>>> release_mem_region(res->start, resource_size(res));
>>> @@ -1009,7 +1010,7 @@ static int ti_hecc_suspend(struct platform_device *pdev, pm_message_t state)
>>> hecc_set_bit(priv, HECC_CANMC, HECC_CANMC_PDR);
>>> priv->can.state = CAN_STATE_SLEEPING;
>>>
>>> - clk_disable(priv->clk);
>>> + clk_disable_unprepare(priv->clk);
>>>
>>> return 0;
>>> }
>>> @@ -1019,7 +1020,7 @@ static int ti_hecc_resume(struct platform_device *pdev)
>>> struct net_device *dev = platform_get_drvdata(pdev);
>>> struct ti_hecc_priv *priv = netdev_priv(dev);
>>>
>>> - clk_enable(priv->clk);
>>> + clk_prepare_enable(priv->clk);
>>
>> please add error checking.
>>
>
> Why it wasn't added with clk_enable? Is it bug? I'm confused here, because in so many drivers
> there is no checking err after clk_enable or clk_prepare_enable. Maybe I missed something...
> Could you clarify this part please?
I wouldn't call it a bug in the original driver, it probably slipped
through the review or I didn't know better.
Marc
--
Pengutronix e.K. | Marc Kleine-Budde |
Industrial Linux Solutions | Phone: +49-231-2826-924 |
Vertretung West/Dortmund | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 |
Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | http://www.pengutronix.de |
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (456 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists