Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752383AbbBWMXh (ORCPT ); Mon, 23 Feb 2015 07:23:37 -0500 Received: from cantor2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:49260 "EHLO mx2.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752348AbbBWMXf (ORCPT ); Mon, 23 Feb 2015 07:23:35 -0500 Message-ID: <54EB1BB9.4030205@suse.de> Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2015 13:23:21 +0100 From: =?UTF-8?B?QW5kcmVhcyBGw6RyYmVy?= Organization: SUSE Linux GmbH User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Javier Martinez Canillas , Tushar Behera , Sangbeom Kim , alsa-devel@alsa-project.org, linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org CC: devicetree@vger.kernel.org, Doug Anderson , Vincent Palatin , Lars-Peter Clausen , Takashi Iwai , Xiubo Li , Liam Girdwood , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Mark Brown , Tomasz Figa , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, Tushar Behera Subject: Re: [alsa-devel] [PATCH] ASoC: max98088: Add master clock handling References: <1424283959-16289-3-git-send-email-afaerber@suse.de> <1424373526-4135-1-git-send-email-afaerber@suse.de> <54E6A9AB.4070401@gmail.com> <54EAE4DF.3040607@collabora.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <54EAE4DF.3040607@collabora.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1317 Lines: 40 Hi, Am 23.02.2015 um 09:29 schrieb Javier Martinez Canillas: > On 02/20/2015 04:27 AM, Tushar Behera wrote: >> On 02/20/2015 12:48 AM, Andreas Färber wrote: >>> If master clock is provided through device tree, then update >>> the master clock frequency during set_sysclk. >>> >>> Cc: Tushar Behera >>> Signed-off-by: Andreas Färber >>> --- >>> sound/soc/codecs/max98088.c | 24 ++++++++++++++++++++++++ >>> 1 file changed, 24 insertions(+) >>> >> >> Looks good. >> >> Acked-by: Tushar Behera >> > > Looks good to me as well. > > Reviewed-by: Javier Martinez Canillas Thanks guys. One self-doubt: Is there any downside to returning -EPROBE_DEFER after regcache_mark_dirty(max98088->regmap)? I.e., should I move the last hunk some lines up to be the very first thing executed? Cheers, Andreas -- SUSE Linux GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany GF: Felix Imendörffer, Jane Smithard, Jennifer Guild, Dilip Upmanyu, Graham Norton; HRB 21284 (AG Nürnberg) -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/