On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 12:56:32PM +0000, Jon Hunter wrote:
> The definition, PLLU_BASE_OVERRIDE, for the pll_u OVERRIDE bit is defined
> but not used and when the OVERRIDE bit is cleared in tegra210_pll_init()
> the code directly uses the bit number. Therefore, use the definition,
> PLLU_BASE_OVERRIDE when clearing the OVERRIDE bit.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jon Hunter <jonathanh@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> drivers/clk/tegra/clk-tegra210.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/clk/tegra/clk-tegra210.c b/drivers/clk/tegra/clk-tegra210.c
> index 791215747863..6f043c5e2394 100644
> --- a/drivers/clk/tegra/clk-tegra210.c
> +++ b/drivers/clk/tegra/clk-tegra210.c
> @@ -2520,7 +2520,7 @@ static void __init tegra210_pll_init(void __iomem *clk_base,
>
> /* PLLU_VCO */
> val = readl(clk_base + pll_u_vco_params.base_reg);
> - val &= ~BIT(24); /* disable PLLU_OVERRIDE */
> + val &= ~PLLU_BASE_OVERRIDE; /* disable PLLU_OVERRIDE */
> writel(val, clk_base + pll_u_vco_params.base_reg);
>
> clk = tegra_clk_register_pllre("pll_u_vco", "pll_ref", clk_base, pmc,
I think the comment is now redundant, given that the code says pretty
much the same thing. No need to respin for that, I can remove the
comment when I apply the patch. That is, unless anyone feels strongly
about keeping the comment.
Thierry
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
