From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Return-Path: Message-ID: <55429497.6030409@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2015 22:46:15 +0200 From: Sebastian Hesselbarth To: Fabio Estevam CC: Michael Welling , Jean-Francois Moine , Mike Turquette , Stephen Boyd , linux-kernel , Russell King , linux-clk@vger.kernel.org, "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] clk: si5351: Do not pass struct clk in platform_data References: <1430415954-29517-1-git-send-email-sebastian.hesselbarth@gmail.com> <1430415954-29517-4-git-send-email-sebastian.hesselbarth@gmail.com> <20150430183043.GA21890@deathray> <554277F3.7060500@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed List-ID: On 30.04.2015 21:16, Fabio Estevam wrote: > On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 3:44 PM, Sebastian Hesselbarth > wrote: >> Michael is right, the check is for bailing out if none of the parent >> clocks is available. > > + if (IS_ERR(drvdata->pxtal) && IS_ERR(drvdata->pclkin)) { > + dev_err(&client->dev, "missing at least one parent clock\n"); > + return -EINVAL; > + } > > Then shouldn't the error message be: "missing both parent clocks\n" ? Yeah, probably. I'll reword the error message and also check the variant as only 5351C can have a "clkin" parent clock. Sebastian