Hi,
On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 11:07:42AM +0100, Alexandre Belloni wrote:
> 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.
Indeed… I missed that because 10/13 is a rename patch, this should be
done here IMHO :)
Sylvain
--
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/
