On 07/08/2015 02:00 AM, Boris Brezillon wrote:
> Hi Stephen,
>
> On Tue, 7 Jul 2015 17:57:48 -0700
> Stephen Boyd <sboyd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> On 07/07, Boris Brezillon wrote:
>>>
>>> } else {
>>> pr_err("clk: clk_composite_determine_rate function called, but no mux or rate callback set!\n");
>>> + req->rate = 0;
>>> return 0;
>> Shouldn't this return an error now? And then assigning req->rate
>> wouldn't be necessary. Sorry I must have missed this last round.
>>
> Actually I wanted to keep the existing behavior: return a 0 rate (not
> an error) when there is no mux or rate ops.
>
> That's something we can change afterwards, but it might reveals
> new bugs if some users are checking for a 0 rate to detect errors.
>
Ok. Care to send the patch now to do that while we're thinking about it?
We can test it out for a month or two.
--
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum,
a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-doc" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
