On 16 January 2013 04:15, Mike Turquette wrote:
> Quoting Rajagopal Venkat (2013-01-08 22:29:48)
>> while reparenting a clock, NULL check is done for clock in
>> consideration and its new parent. So re-check is not required.
>> If done, else part becomes unreachable.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Rajagopal
On 01/09/2013 11:59 AM, Rajagopal Venkat wrote:
> while reparenting a clock, NULL check is done for clock in
> consideration and its new parent. So re-check is not required.
> If done, else part becomes unreachable.
>
> Signed-off-by: Rajagopal Venkat
> ---
It is good to have revision history of
while reparenting a clock, NULL check is done for clock in
consideration and its new parent. So re-check is not required.
If done, else part becomes unreachable.
Signed-off-by: Rajagopal Venkat
---
drivers/clk/clk.c | 13 ++---
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
diff --g
On 9 January 2013 11:20, Tushar Behera wrote:
> On 01/08/2013 06:33 PM, Rajagopal Venkat wrote:
>> while reparenting a clock, NULL check is done for clock in
>> consideration and its new parent. So re-check is not required.
>> If done, else part becomes unreachable.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Rajagopal
On 01/08/2013 06:33 PM, Rajagopal Venkat wrote:
> while reparenting a clock, NULL check is done for clock in
> consideration and its new parent. So re-check is not required.
> If done, else part becomes unreachable.
>
> Signed-off-by: Rajagopal Venkat
> ---
> drivers/clk/clk.c |5 +
> 1
while reparenting a clock, NULL check is done for clock in
consideration and its new parent. So re-check is not required.
If done, else part becomes unreachable.
Signed-off-by: Rajagopal Venkat
---
drivers/clk/clk.c |5 +
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drive
6 matches
Mail list logo
