From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: linux@arm.linux.org.uk (Russell King - ARM Linux) Date: Tue, 15 May 2012 11:15:41 +0100 Subject: [PATCH] serial: samsung: Fixed wrong comparison for baudclk_rate In-Reply-To: <000101cd3283$5f58eba0$1e0ac2e0$%kim@samsung.com> References: <000101cd3283$5f58eba0$1e0ac2e0$%kim@samsung.com> Message-ID: <20120515101541.GH10453@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 07:13:28PM +0900, Kyoungil Kim wrote: > port->baudclk_rate should be compared to the rate of port->baudclk, > because port->baudclk_rate was assigned as the rate of port->baudclk previously. > So to check that the current baudclk rate is same as previous rate, > the target of comparison sholud be the rate of port->baudclk. > > Signed-off-by: Jun-Ho, Yoon > Signed-off-by: Kyoungil Kim > --- > drivers/tty/serial/samsung.c | 4 ++-- > 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/tty/serial/samsung.c b/drivers/tty/serial/samsung.c > index d8b0aee..c4867ea 100644 > --- a/drivers/tty/serial/samsung.c > +++ b/drivers/tty/serial/samsung.c > @@ -1014,10 +1014,10 @@ static int s3c24xx_serial_cpufreq_transition(struct notifier_block *nb, > * a disturbance in the clock-rate over the change. > */ > > - if (IS_ERR(port->clk)) > + if (IS_ERR_OR_NULL(port->baudclk)) NAK. See my previous emails on the validity of clk_get() return values.