On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 5:00 PM, Jamie Iles <jamie@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 02:27:47PM +0530, viresh kumar wrote:
>> On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 1:54 PM, Jamie Iles <jamie@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >> I don't know why, but checkpatch used to give few errors which it is
>> >> not giving now.
>> >> Like:
>> >> - Mixing spaces and tabs
>> >> - Line over 80 columns.
>> >>
> I do need to fix up the register locations (40-45) but the others are ok
> - they are tab indented to get to a multiple of 8 then spaces to align
> to the '(' brackets etc.
That's what i said. Checkpatch used to give warning for them earlier.
I don't know if it is correct or not. Anyway, others will comment if it is
still a issue. You can keep that as it is.
>> Problem will occur if rate is dynamically changed and we are still believing
>> on platform code's clk_rate.
>> Would be better if we switch order. i.e. give priority to clk_get_rate over
>> pdata->rate.
>
> If the platform can change the rate then I don't see why it would define
> the rate in the platform data though. ÂAnyway, I can make the change and
> issue a warning and fail the probe if we're using the rate from
> clk_get_rate() and there is a non-zero rate in the platform data.
that's better.
--
viresh
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-watchdog" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
