On Tuesday 26 November 2013 07:31 AM, Paul Walmsley wrote: > > Treat both negative and zero return values from clk_round_rate() > as errors. This is needed since subsequent patches will convert > clk_round_rate()'s return value to be an unsigned type, rather > than a signed type, since some clock sources can generate rates > higher than (2^31)-1 Hz. > > Eventually, when calling clk_round_rate(), only a return value of > zero will be considered a error. All other values will be > considered valid rates. The comparison against values less than > 0 is kept to preserve the correct behavior in the meantime. > > Signed-off-by: Paul Walmsley <paul@xxxxxxxxx> > Cc: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@xxxxxxxxx> > Cc: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@xxxxxxxxxx> > Cc: Mike Turquette <mturquette@xxxxxxxxxx> > --- > Applies on v3.13-rc1. See also: > > http://marc.info/?l=linux-arm-kernel&m=138542591313620&w=2 > > drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq-cpu0.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq-cpu0.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq-cpu0.c > index d4585ce2346c..0faf756f6197 100644 > --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq-cpu0.c > +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq-cpu0.c > @@ -44,7 +44,7 @@ static int cpu0_set_target(struct cpufreq_policy *policy, > unsigned int index) > int ret; > > freq_Hz = clk_round_rate(cpu_clk, freq_table[index].frequency * 1000); > - if (freq_Hz < 0) > + if (freq_Hz <= 0) > freq_Hz = freq_table[index].frequency * 1000; > > freq_exact = freq_Hz; So, we will see another patch where you will do: s/<=/== ?? I am wondering if there is any other way we can get this solved, i.e. in a single patchset. Otherwise, for both SPEAr and cpu0 patches: Acked-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@xxxxxxxxxx> -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe cpufreq" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
