Hello.
On 2/5/2015 8:19 PM, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
Anyone may call clk_round_rate() with a zero rate value, so we have to
protect against that.
Signed-off-by: Geert Uytterhoeven
Acked-by: Wolfram Sang
I agree that this should not be fixed in the core because the fixup is
really
Hello.
On 2/5/2015 8:19 PM, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
Anyone may call clk_round_rate() with a zero rate value, so we have to
protect against that.
Signed-off-by: Geert Uytterhoeven geert+rene...@glider.be
Acked-by: Wolfram Sang wsa+rene...@sang-engineering.com
I agree that this should
Quoting Laurent Pinchart (2015-02-05 09:19:14)
> Hi Sergei,
>
> On Thursday 05 February 2015 01:14:46 Sergei Shtylyov wrote:
> > On 02/05/2015 01:04 AM, Sergei Shtylyov wrote:
> > > Anyone may call clk_round_rate() with a zero rate value, so we have to
> > > protect against that.
> >
Hi Sergei,
On Thursday 05 February 2015 01:14:46 Sergei Shtylyov wrote:
> On 02/05/2015 01:04 AM, Sergei Shtylyov wrote:
> > Anyone may call clk_round_rate() with a zero rate value, so we have to
> > protect against that.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Geert Uytterhoeven
>
>
Hi Sergei,
On Thursday 05 February 2015 01:14:46 Sergei Shtylyov wrote:
On 02/05/2015 01:04 AM, Sergei Shtylyov wrote:
Anyone may call clk_round_rate() with a zero rate value, so we have to
protect against that.
Signed-off-by: Geert Uytterhoeven geert+rene...@glider.be
Acked-by:
Quoting Laurent Pinchart (2015-02-05 09:19:14)
Hi Sergei,
On Thursday 05 February 2015 01:14:46 Sergei Shtylyov wrote:
On 02/05/2015 01:04 AM, Sergei Shtylyov wrote:
Anyone may call clk_round_rate() with a zero rate value, so we have to
protect against that.
Signed-off-by: Geert
Hello.
On 02/05/2015 01:04 AM, Sergei Shtylyov wrote:
Anyone may call clk_round_rate() with a zero rate value, so we have to
protect against that.
Signed-off-by: Geert Uytterhoeven
Acked-by: Wolfram Sang
I agree that this should not be fixed in the core because the fixup is
really
Quoting Wolfram Sang (2015-02-04 09:32:34)
> On Wed, Feb 04, 2015 at 01:27:21PM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> > Anyone may call clk_round_rate() with a zero rate value, so we have to
> > protect against that.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Geert Uytterhoeven
>
> Acked-by: Wolfram Sang
>
> I
Hello.
On 02/05/2015 01:01 AM, Mike Turquette wrote:
Anyone may call clk_round_rate() with a zero rate value, so we have to
protect against that.
Signed-off-by: Geert Uytterhoeven
Acked-by: Wolfram Sang
I agree that this should not be fixed in the core because the fixup is
really
Quoting Sergei Shtylyov (2015-02-04 09:45:14)
> Hello.
>
> On 02/04/2015 08:32 PM, Wolfram Sang wrote:
>
> >> Anyone may call clk_round_rate() with a zero rate value, so we have to
> >> protect against that.
>
> >> Signed-off-by: Geert Uytterhoeven
>
> > Acked-by: Wolfram Sang
>
> > I agree
Hello.
On 02/04/2015 08:32 PM, Wolfram Sang wrote:
Anyone may call clk_round_rate() with a zero rate value, so we have to
protect against that.
Signed-off-by: Geert Uytterhoeven
Acked-by: Wolfram Sang
I agree that this should not be fixed in the core because the fixup is
really
On Wed, Feb 04, 2015 at 01:27:21PM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> Anyone may call clk_round_rate() with a zero rate value, so we have to
> protect against that.
>
> Signed-off-by: Geert Uytterhoeven
Acked-by: Wolfram Sang
I agree that this should not be fixed in the core because the fixup
Hi Sergei,
On Wednesday 04 February 2015 16:31:29 Sergei Shtylyov wrote:
> On 02/04/2015 03:27 PM, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> > Anyone may call clk_round_rate() with a zero rate value, so we have to
> > protect against that.
>
> Shouldn't this be checked and fixed up in clk_round_rate() then?
Hello.
On 02/04/2015 03:27 PM, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
Anyone may call clk_round_rate() with a zero rate value, so we have to
protect against that.
Shouldn't this be checked and fixed up in clk_round_rate() then?
Signed-off-by: Geert Uytterhoeven
WBR, Sergei
--
To unsubscribe from
Anyone may call clk_round_rate() with a zero rate value, so we have to
protect against that.
Signed-off-by: Geert Uytterhoeven
---
This was triggered by the bad version of "clk: Add rate constraints to
clocks", but can happen regardless, cfr.
https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/1/29/560
On Wed, Feb 04, 2015 at 01:27:21PM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
Anyone may call clk_round_rate() with a zero rate value, so we have to
protect against that.
Signed-off-by: Geert Uytterhoeven geert+rene...@glider.be
Acked-by: Wolfram Sang wsa+rene...@sang-engineering.com
I agree that
Hello.
On 02/04/2015 08:32 PM, Wolfram Sang wrote:
Anyone may call clk_round_rate() with a zero rate value, so we have to
protect against that.
Signed-off-by: Geert Uytterhoeven geert+rene...@glider.be
Acked-by: Wolfram Sang wsa+rene...@sang-engineering.com
I agree that this should
Quoting Sergei Shtylyov (2015-02-04 09:45:14)
Hello.
On 02/04/2015 08:32 PM, Wolfram Sang wrote:
Anyone may call clk_round_rate() with a zero rate value, so we have to
protect against that.
Signed-off-by: Geert Uytterhoeven geert+rene...@glider.be
Acked-by: Wolfram Sang
Hello.
On 02/05/2015 01:04 AM, Sergei Shtylyov wrote:
Anyone may call clk_round_rate() with a zero rate value, so we have to
protect against that.
Signed-off-by: Geert Uytterhoeven geert+rene...@glider.be
Acked-by: Wolfram Sang wsa+rene...@sang-engineering.com
I agree that this should
Quoting Wolfram Sang (2015-02-04 09:32:34)
On Wed, Feb 04, 2015 at 01:27:21PM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
Anyone may call clk_round_rate() with a zero rate value, so we have to
protect against that.
Signed-off-by: Geert Uytterhoeven geert+rene...@glider.be
Acked-by: Wolfram Sang
Hello.
On 02/05/2015 01:01 AM, Mike Turquette wrote:
Anyone may call clk_round_rate() with a zero rate value, so we have to
protect against that.
Signed-off-by: Geert Uytterhoeven geert+rene...@glider.be
Acked-by: Wolfram Sang wsa+rene...@sang-engineering.com
I agree that this should
Hi Sergei,
On Wednesday 04 February 2015 16:31:29 Sergei Shtylyov wrote:
On 02/04/2015 03:27 PM, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
Anyone may call clk_round_rate() with a zero rate value, so we have to
protect against that.
Shouldn't this be checked and fixed up in clk_round_rate() then?
Not all
Hello.
On 02/04/2015 03:27 PM, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
Anyone may call clk_round_rate() with a zero rate value, so we have to
protect against that.
Shouldn't this be checked and fixed up in clk_round_rate() then?
Signed-off-by: Geert Uytterhoeven geert+rene...@glider.be
WBR, Sergei
Anyone may call clk_round_rate() with a zero rate value, so we have to
protect against that.
Signed-off-by: Geert Uytterhoeven geert+rene...@glider.be
---
This was triggered by the bad version of clk: Add rate constraints to
clocks, but can happen regardless, cfr.
24 matches
Mail list logo
