Re: [PATCH] clk: Fix notifier documentation

2014-02-03 Thread Sören Brinkmann
On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 10:01:27PM -0800, Mike Turquette wrote: > On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 5:49 PM, Sören Brinkmann > wrote: > > ping? > > Hi Soren, > > I'm a bit slow to review patches during the merge window. Thanks for > the doc update. I'll take it in after -rc1 drops. Sorry for my impatienc

Re: [PATCH] clk: Fix notifier documentation

2014-01-31 Thread Mike Turquette
On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 5:49 PM, Sören Brinkmann wrote: > ping? Hi Soren, I'm a bit slow to review patches during the merge window. Thanks for the doc update. I'll take it in after -rc1 drops. Regards, Mik > > On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 11:48:37AM -0800, Soren Brinkmann wrote: >> Contradicting to

Re: [PATCH] clk: Fix notifier documentation

2014-01-31 Thread Sören Brinkmann
ping? On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 11:48:37AM -0800, Soren Brinkmann wrote: > Contradicting to documenation, the notifier callbacks do receive > the original clock rate in struct clk_notifier_data.old_rate and the new > frequency struct clk_notifier_data.new_rate, independent of the > notification reas

[PATCH] clk: Fix notifier documentation

2014-01-22 Thread Soren Brinkmann
Contradicting to documenation, the notifier callbacks do receive the original clock rate in struct clk_notifier_data.old_rate and the new frequency struct clk_notifier_data.new_rate, independent of the notification reason. This behavior also seems to make more sense, since callbacks can use the sa