From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Rhyland Klein Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] clk: tegra: Use definition for pll_u override bit Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2016 11:10:53 -0500 Message-ID: <5696770D.2050007@nvidia.com> References: <1450702592-7755-1-git-send-email-jonathanh@nvidia.com> <1450702592-7755-2-git-send-email-jonathanh@nvidia.com> <20160113160833.GK2588@ulmo> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20160113160833.GK2588@ulmo> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Thierry Reding , Jon Hunter Cc: Peter De Schrijver , Prashant Gaikwad , Michael Turquette , Stephen Boyd , Stephen Warren , Alexandre Courbot , linux-clk@vger.kernel.org, linux-tegra@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-tegra@vger.kernel.org On 1/13/2016 11:08 AM, Thierry Reding wrote: > * PGP Signed by an unknown key > > On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 12:56:32PM +0000, Jon Hunter wrote: >> The definition, PLLU_BASE_OVERRIDE, for the pll_u OVERRIDE bit is defined >> but not used and when the OVERRIDE bit is cleared in tegra210_pll_init() >> the code directly uses the bit number. Therefore, use the definition, >> PLLU_BASE_OVERRIDE when clearing the OVERRIDE bit. >> >> Signed-off-by: Jon Hunter >> --- >> drivers/clk/tegra/clk-tegra210.c | 2 +- >> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/clk/tegra/clk-tegra210.c b/drivers/clk/tegra/clk-tegra210.c >> index 791215747863..6f043c5e2394 100644 >> --- a/drivers/clk/tegra/clk-tegra210.c >> +++ b/drivers/clk/tegra/clk-tegra210.c >> @@ -2520,7 +2520,7 @@ static void __init tegra210_pll_init(void __iomem *clk_base, >> >> /* PLLU_VCO */ >> val = readl(clk_base + pll_u_vco_params.base_reg); >> - val &= ~BIT(24); /* disable PLLU_OVERRIDE */ >> + val &= ~PLLU_BASE_OVERRIDE; /* disable PLLU_OVERRIDE */ >> writel(val, clk_base + pll_u_vco_params.base_reg); >> >> clk = tegra_clk_register_pllre("pll_u_vco", "pll_ref", clk_base, pmc, > > I think the comment is now redundant, given that the code says pretty > much the same thing. No need to respin for that, I can remove the > comment when I apply the patch. That is, unless anyone feels strongly > about keeping the comment. I agree its redundant. If I am going to post a new version to address other concerns, I can just roll this in while doing so. -rhyland -- nvpublic