On 19/10/15 09:33, Jon Medhurst (Tixy) wrote:
On Wed, 2015-10-14 at 09:48 +0100, Sudeep Holla wrote:
[...]
OK, I understand what you mean now. I don't have a strong opinion, but here is the reason why I prefer the approach I said earlier: clk_set_rate doesn't return error if the h/w or f/w return error which is usually the last step. So calling clk_get_rate when clk_set_rate return error quite early makes no sense to me.It doesn't to me either, but my suggested code doesn't do that, it only calls clk_get_rate if the is _no_ error from clk_set_rate, the pseudo code again... ret = clk_set_rate() if(!ret) /* if no error from clk_set_rate */ if(clk_get_rate()!=correct) /* but some additional checks fail */ ret = -EIO; /* then indicate an error anyway */ !ret is ret==0 is 'no error' as the comment says. So the clock framework thinks the rate was set OK and we then use clk_get_rate to see if those unreported h/w or f/w errors mean that it actually wasn't set OK.
Ah sorry, my mistake. May be I got carried away by that extra if(!ret). I am fine with the patch. Acked-by: Sudeep Holla <[email protected]> -- Regards, Sudeep -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
