From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Viresh Kumar Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 4/9] ata/sata_mv: Remove conditional compilation of clk code Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2012 12:35:23 +0530 Message-ID: <4F9650B3.9030406@st.com> References: <20120424070426.GA24089@lunn.ch> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from eu1sys200aog114.obsmtp.com ([207.126.144.137]:56293 "EHLO eu1sys200aog114.obsmtp.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754543Ab2DXHHY (ORCPT ); Tue, 24 Apr 2012 03:07:24 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20120424070426.GA24089@lunn.ch> Sender: linux-ide-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org To: Andrew Lunn Cc: "akpm@linux-foundation.org" , "linux@arm.linux.org.uk" , "sshtylyov@mvista.com" , spear-devel , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-ide@vger.kernel.org" , "viresh.linux@gmail.com" , "mturquette@linaro.org" , "jgarzik@redhat.com" , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" On 4/24/2012 12:34 PM, Andrew Lunn wrote: > I don't think this change is correct. With the old semantics, it was: Sorry. :( > If we have CLK support, we expect there to be a clock for sata_mv, and > if there is no such clock, output a notice message, something is > probably wrong, i expected there to be a clock. > > The new semantics are: > > We expect there to be a clock for sata_mv, and if there is no such > clock, output a notice message, something is probably wrong, i > expected there to be a clock. > > We are going to see this notice message much more, when it is not > expected. So, the only problem is this message? How do you suggest to tackle this now. Have #ifdef,#endif around this print? -- viresh From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: viresh.kumar@st.com (Viresh Kumar) Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2012 12:35:23 +0530 Subject: [PATCH V2 4/9] ata/sata_mv: Remove conditional compilation of clk code In-Reply-To: <20120424070426.GA24089@lunn.ch> References: <20120424070426.GA24089@lunn.ch> Message-ID: <4F9650B3.9030406@st.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On 4/24/2012 12:34 PM, Andrew Lunn wrote: > I don't think this change is correct. With the old semantics, it was: Sorry. :( > If we have CLK support, we expect there to be a clock for sata_mv, and > if there is no such clock, output a notice message, something is > probably wrong, i expected there to be a clock. > > The new semantics are: > > We expect there to be a clock for sata_mv, and if there is no such > clock, output a notice message, something is probably wrong, i > expected there to be a clock. > > We are going to see this notice message much more, when it is not > expected. So, the only problem is this message? How do you suggest to tackle this now. Have #ifdef,#endif around this print? -- viresh