On Wed, Sep 05, 2012 at 11:48:51PM +0200, Beno?t Th?baudeau wrote:
quoted
- c = clk_get_rate(imx->clk);
+ c = clk_get_rate(imx->clk_per);
c = c * period_ns;
do_div(c, 1000000000);
period_cycles = c;
@@ -160,8 +161,15 @@ static int imx_pwm_config(struct pwm_chip *chip,
struct pwm_device *pwm, int duty_ns, int period_ns)
{
struct imx_chip *imx = to_imx_chip(chip);
+ int ret;
- return imx->config(chip, pwm, duty_ns, period_ns);
+ clk_prepare_enable(imx->clk_ipg);
Why don't you test the return value like in imx_pwm_enable()?
Will do next time.
Sascha
I have reviewed the whole series. Apart from the comments I made, it looks good
to me.
Thanks. I can take this as a reviewed-by, right?
Sascha
--
Pengutronix e.K. | |
Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ |
Peiner Str. 6-8, 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0 |
Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 |