Re: [PATCH] OMAP: I2C driver for TI OMAP boards #4

Re: [PATCH] OMAP: I2C driver for TI OMAP boards #4

[Jean Delvare]

Hi Komal,

This one ended up in my spam box once again, although with a lower
score (using the proper type for the attachement seems to have helped.)
Maybe try with a shorter list of recipients next time, and add the name
of people before their address.

> Attached the updated patch as per the review comments on #3 patch.
> 
> Please consider it for the inclusion.

Looks good, I'll take it. One remaining objection:

> +static int omap_i2c_get_clocks(struct omap_i2c_dev *dev)
> +{
> +	if (cpu_is_omap16xx() || cpu_is_omap24xx()) {
> +		dev->iclk = clk_get(dev->dev, "i2c_ick");
> +		if (IS_ERR(dev->iclk)) {
> +			dev->iclk = NULL;
> +			return -ENODEV;
> +		}
> +	}
> +
> +	dev->fclk = clk_get(dev->dev, "i2c_fck");
> +	if (IS_ERR(dev->fclk)) {
> +		if (dev->iclk != NULL) {
> +			clk_put(dev->iclk);
> +			dev->iclk = NULL;
> +			return -ENODEV;

I think this return shouldn't be there.

> +		}
> +		dev->fclk = NULL;
> +		return -ENODEV;
> +	}
> +
> +	return 0;
> +}

I'll fix it myself if you agree, so that you don't have to resend a
patch. Thanks for the good work! I'll send the patch upstream at the
end of the week, so it should show in -mm soon.

-- 
Jean Delvare

Re: [PATCH] OMAP: I2C driver for TI OMAP boards #4

[Komal Shah]

--- Jean Delvare <khali@linux-fr.org> wrote:

> Hi Komal,
> 
> This one ended up in my spam box once again, although with a lower
> score (using the proper type for the attachement seems to have
> helped.)
> Maybe try with a shorter list of recipients next time, and add the
> name
> of people before their address.

I hope this doesn't end up in spam box ;). 

> 
> > Attached the updated patch as per the review comments on #3 patch.
> > 
> > Please consider it for the inclusion.
> 
> Looks good, I'll take it. One remaining objection:
> 
> > +static int omap_i2c_get_clocks(struct omap_i2c_dev *dev)
> > +{
> > +	if (cpu_is_omap16xx() || cpu_is_omap24xx()) {
> > +		dev->iclk = clk_get(dev->dev, "i2c_ick");
> > +		if (IS_ERR(dev->iclk)) {
> > +			dev->iclk = NULL;
> > +			return -ENODEV;
> > +		}
> > +	}
> > +
> > +	dev->fclk = clk_get(dev->dev, "i2c_fck");
> > +	if (IS_ERR(dev->fclk)) {
> > +		if (dev->iclk != NULL) {
> > +			clk_put(dev->iclk);
> > +			dev->iclk = NULL;
> > +			return -ENODEV;
> 
> I think this return shouldn't be there.
> 
> > +		}
> > +		dev->fclk = NULL;
> > +		return -ENODEV;
> > +	}
> > +
> > +	return 0;
> > +}
> 
> I'll fix it myself if you agree, so that you don't have to resend a
> patch. Thanks for the good work! I'll send the patch upstream at the
> end of the week, so it should show in -mm soon.

I am fine with that change. Thanx for the review.

Signed-off-by: Komal Shah <komal_shah802003@yahoo.com>


---Komal Shah
http://komalshah.blogspot.com/

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com