Roger Quadros had written, on 08/04/2009 03:00 AM, the following:
ext Nishanth Menon wrote:
diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/resource34xx.c b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/resource34xx.c
index 25535a3..1ceaed8 100644
--- a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/resource34xx.c
+++ b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/resource34xx.c
@@ -240,13 +240,23 @@ static int program_opp_freq(int res, int target_level, int current_level)
lock_scratchpad_sem();
if (res == VDD1_OPP) {
curr_opp = &curr_vdd1_opp;
- clk_set_rate(dpll1_clk, mpu_opps[target_level].rate);
- clk_set_rate(dpll2_clk, dsp_opps[target_level].rate);
+ ret = clk_set_rate(dpll1_clk, mpu_opps[target_level].rate);
+ if (unlikely(ret))
+ return ret;
if we return here we're not calling unlock_scratchpad_sem(). if you remove the
return statement the expected functionality will be achieved by the next if(ret)
statement.
yep. my bad.. thanks.. will fix and resend.
looks like you are changing the return behaviour from opp level to 0/1. You
should explain this in a function header comment.
This function does not have a function header comment. this information
is already part of the patch header. Quote:"
This changes program_freq_opp return type in the process
for program_opp to handle error in a consistent
manner.
"
Will send out a rev2 based on comment 1 (unlock_scratchpad_sem).
--
Regards,
Nishanth Menon
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
