Hi,
On 27/01/2015 at 10:55:15 +0100, Sylvain Rochet wrote :
> Hello Wenyou,
>
> On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 01:57:27PM +0800, Wenyou Yang wrote:
> >
> > static void __init at91_pm_init(void)
> > {
> > -#ifdef CONFIG_AT91_SLOW_CLOCK
> > at91_pm_sram_init();
> > -#endif
> >
> > pr_info("AT91: Power Management%s\n", (slow_clock ? " (with slow clock
> > mode)" : ""));
>
> Details, but the ternary operation can be removed here, slow_clock now
> defines whether we have PM support at all, not whether we have
> slow_clock mode available.
>
> Maybe we should not even display this message on the console if we
> failed to allocate sram for slow_clock, we already fired a message
> saying that PM is not available at all in at91_pm_sram_init().
>
That is done in patch 10/13.
--
Alexandre Belloni, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering
http://free-electrons.com
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
