On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 05:08:42PM +0530, viresh kumar wrote:
> 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. Anyway, 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.
Ok, I'll give Wim chance to have a look over v5 then I'll integrate
these changes.
Thanks again for the review.
Jamie
--
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
