Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 16 Oct 2014 15:22:42 +0530 | Subject | Re: [PATCH 6/6] cpufreq: Loongson1: Add cpufreq driver for Loongson1B (UPDATED) | From | Viresh Kumar <> |
| |
On 16 October 2014 15:00, Kelvin Cheung <keguang.zhang@gmail.com> wrote:
Just to let u know, your mails are probably generated in html whereas they should be in text mode.
> 2014-10-16 16:23 GMT+08:00 Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>: >> >> This is not how we send updated versions, GIT and other tools will commit >> the "(UPDATED)" part while applying. What you were required to do was >> something like: >> >> git format-patch A..B --subject-prefix="PATCH V2" > > > I use 'updated' because only one patch in the patch set need to be updated. > If you insist, I will regenerate this patch.
Even in that case you can do what I was saying. No, you don't need to resend for that reason now. :)
>> On 15 October 2014 12:53, Kelvin Cheung <keguang.zhang@gmail.com> wrote: >> > +static int ls1x_cpufreq_remove(struct platform_device *pdev) >> > +{ >> > + cpufreq_unregister_notifier(&ls1x_cpufreq_notifier_block, >> > + CPUFREQ_TRANSITION_NOTIFIER); >> > + cpufreq_unregister_driver(&ls1x_cpufreq_driver); >> > + clk_put(ls1x_cpufreq.osc_clk); >> > + clk_put(ls1x_cpufreq.clk); >> > + >> > + return 0; >> > +} >> > + >> > +static int ls1x_cpufreq_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) >> > +{ >> > + struct plat_ls1x_cpufreq *pdata = pdev->dev.platform_data; >> > + struct clk *clk; >> > + int ret; >> > + >> > + if (!pdata) >> > + return -EINVAL; >> > + if (!pdata->clk_name) >> > + return -EINVAL; >> > + if (!pdata->osc_clk_name) >> > + return -EINVAL; >> >> I didn't wanted you to do this, You could have done this: >> >> if (!pdata || !pdata->clk_name || !pdata->osc_clk_name) >> return -EINVAL; >> >> So, just a || instead of && :) >> >> > + >> > + ls1x_cpufreq.dev = &pdev->dev; >> > + >> > + clk = clk_get(NULL, pdata->clk_name); >> >> I believe we agreed for devm_clk_get(), isn't it ? > > > In my case I think clk_get() is enough.
Obviously its enough but wouldn't it be better to use a infrastructure which is somewhat better ?
> Moreover, most of cpufreq drivers use clk_get().
So what? Is that a good enough reason for adopting a good change?
| |