From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: emil@limesaudio.com (Emil Lundmark) Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2016 18:02:32 +0200 Subject: [PATCH 1/2] ARM: imx: fix integer overflow in AV PLL round rate In-Reply-To: References: <1475752331-19525-1-git-send-email-emil@limesaudio.com> <20161007141224.GA18011@lime> Message-ID: <20161007160231.GA10773@workstation.local> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Fri, Oct 07, 2016 at 12:34:42PM -0300, Fabio Estevam wrote: > Hi Emil, > > On Fri, Oct 7, 2016 at 11:12 AM, Emil Lundmark wrote: > > I realize that the two patches in this series does not actually depend on > > each other. This is my first contribution to Linux so I wonder if I should > > resubmit these as two separate patches instead? > > > > For example, what if the second patch in the series is not needed? Do you > > only accept the first patch then? Or what if I need to revise the second > > patch? It seems unnecessary to include the first patch in that case. > > > > I also got the threading wrong, but thats another story. > > It is better to resend these two patches and mark them as v2: > [PATCH v2 1/2] > [PATCH v2 2/2] > > Then put below the --- line what has changed from the previous one. If > nothing changed just put "None". > > I am wondering if your patch series tries to fix the regression > reported by Ken Lin or is it unrelated? > http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2016-October/460451.html I was not aware of that issue before but it seems related. Only the first patch in the series is relevant for solving the issue I was experiencing. I can't tell if it also solves theirs, but it's probable. The second part is really only nitpicking I discovered when debugging. Its intention is to allow a precision of 1 Hz instead of (most likely) 24 Hz. But when is that important for MHz clocks anyway? -- Emil Lundmark