On Wed, Sep 05, 2012 at 11:48:51PM +0200, Benoît Thébaudeau wrote: > > > > - c = clk_get_rate(imx->clk); > > + c = clk_get_rate(imx->clk_per); > > c = c * period_ns; > > do_div(c, 1000000000); > > period_cycles = c; > > @@ -160,8 +161,15 @@ static int imx_pwm_config(struct pwm_chip *chip, > > struct pwm_device *pwm, int duty_ns, int period_ns) > > { > > struct imx_chip *imx = to_imx_chip(chip); > > + int ret; > > > > - return imx->config(chip, pwm, duty_ns, period_ns); > > + clk_prepare_enable(imx->clk_ipg); > > Why don't you test the return value like in imx_pwm_enable()?
Will do next time. Sascha > > I have reviewed the whole series. Apart from the comments I made, it looks > good > to me. Thanks. I can take this as a reviewed-by, right? Sascha -- Pengutronix e.K. | | Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ | Peiner Str. 6-8, 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0 | Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 | -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/