On Mon, 13 Jul 2015 16:02:18 -0700
Stephen Boyd <sboyd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 07/09, Boris Brezillon wrote:
> > Hi Stephen,
> >
> > On Wed, 08 Jul 2015 11:07:42 -0700
> > Stephen Boyd <sboyd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > > 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.
> > >
> >
> > Here is a patch modifying a few drivers to return errors instead of a 0
> > rate. Feel free to squash it in the previous one if you think this is
> > better.
> >
> > Best Regards,
> >
> > Boris
> >
> > --- >8 ---
> >
> > From dca9c28301042cf19dad4b1e4555cdb7c1063745 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> > From: Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Date: Thu, 9 Jul 2015 12:20:21 +0200
> > Subject: [PATCH] clk: fix some determine_rate implementations
> >
> > Some determine_rate implementations are not returning an error when then
> > failed to adapt the rate according to the rate request.
> > Fix them so that they return an error instead of silently returning 0.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> The linewrap is seriously messed up here. Please fix your mailer
> next time. I had to hand edit the patch to get it to apply. I've
> applied this in top of the original patch as a different commit,
> in case we need to revert it later.
Sorry about that, I forgot to remove the line wrapper when copying the
content of the patch into my mailer :-/.
--
Boris Brezillon, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
http://free-electrons.com
