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/
