After clk_get() mclk is checked three times instead of mout_epll
and sclk_spdif checks.
Signed-off-by: Vasiliy Kulikov <[email protected]>
---
Cannot compile this driver, so it is not tested.
sound/soc/s3c24xx/smdk_spdif.c | 4 ++--
1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/sound/soc/s3c24xx/smdk_spdif.c b/sound/soc/s3c24xx/smdk_spdif.c
index 11c88b1..761e02b 100644
--- a/sound/soc/s3c24xx/smdk_spdif.c
+++ b/sound/soc/s3c24xx/smdk_spdif.c
@@ -38,7 +38,7 @@ static int set_audio_clock_heirachy(struct platform_device *pdev)
}
mout_epll = clk_get(NULL, "mout_epll");
- if (IS_ERR(fout_epll)) {
+ if (IS_ERR(mout_epll)) {
printk(KERN_WARNING "%s: Cannot find mout_epll.\n",
__func__);
ret = -EINVAL;
@@ -54,7 +54,7 @@ static int set_audio_clock_heirachy(struct platform_device *pdev)
}
sclk_spdif = clk_get(NULL, "sclk_spdif");
- if (IS_ERR(fout_epll)) {
+ if (IS_ERR(sclk_spdif)) {
printk(KERN_WARNING "%s: Cannot find sclk_spdif.\n",
__func__);
ret = -EINVAL;
--
1.7.0.4
On Sun, 2010-11-21 at 20:40 +0300, Vasiliy Kulikov wrote:
> After clk_get() mclk is checked three times instead of mout_epll
> and sclk_spdif checks.
>
> Signed-off-by: Vasiliy Kulikov <[email protected]>
> ---
> Cannot compile this driver, so it is not tested.
>
Acked-by: Liam Girdwood <[email protected]>
--
Freelance Developer, SlimLogic Ltd
ASoC and Voltage Regulator Maintainer.
http://www.slimlogic.co.uk
On Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 08:40:21PM +0300, Vasiliy Kulikov wrote:
> After clk_get() mclk is checked three times instead of mout_epll
> and sclk_spdif checks.
>
> Signed-off-by: Vasiliy Kulikov <[email protected]>
Applied, thanks.
On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 11:00 PM, Mark Brown
<[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 08:40:21PM +0300, Vasiliy Kulikov wrote:
>> After clk_get() mclk is checked three times instead of mout_epll
>> and sclk_spdif checks.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Vasiliy Kulikov <[email protected]>
>
> Applied, thanks.
Wierd, it is CC to me as well but I didn't receive it.
Though the change is ok.
On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 06:53:58AM +0900, Jassi Brar wrote:
> Wierd, it is CC to me as well but I didn't receive it.
> Though the change is ok.
Could be greylisting - don't recall if the Samsung mail system does that
or not but I've seen issues with that causing random delays before.
Either that or the anti-spam system eating it.