From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Alexander Sverdlin Subject: Re: [PATCH] i2c: davinci: Increase module clock frequency Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2015 15:00:12 +0100 Message-ID: <565C566C.7000809@nokia.com> References: <564DBEE3.4030508@nokia.com> <20151130135504.GE1513@katana> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from demumfd001.nsn-inter.net ([93.183.12.32]:49147 "EHLO demumfd001.nsn-inter.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753881AbbK3OAQ (ORCPT ); Mon, 30 Nov 2015 09:00:16 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20151130135504.GE1513@katana> Sender: linux-i2c-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org To: EXT Wolfram Sang Cc: Sekhar Nori , Kevin Hilman , linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org, Murali Karicheri , Santosh Shilimkar Hi! On 30.11.2015 14:55, EXT Wolfram Sang wrote: >> /* get minimum of 7 MHz clock, but max of 12 MHz */ >> > - psc = (input_clock / 7000000) - 1; >> > + psc = (input_clock / 12000000) - 1; > Doesn't make this the above comment invalid? The comment refers to datasheet, not really to the code. And eventual changes to the datasheet that's what can make it invalid (though I don't know TI's plans on it). Nevertheless, yes, I think, it's better to drop the comment. Should I re-spin the patch with comment removal in it? -- Best regards, Alexander Sverdlin. Sent from my pdp-11