Looks like you did another unintentional reply-to-me only :), cc'ing others again..
On 3 June 2014 01:53, Kevin Hilman khilman@linaro.org wrote:
Viresh Kumar viresh.kumar@linaro.org writes:
diff --git a/kernel/time/clockevents.c b/kernel/time/clockevents.c index ad362c2..c9bef22 100644 --- a/kernel/time/clockevents.c +++ b/kernel/time/clockevents.c @@ -105,7 +105,12 @@ void clockevents_set_mode(struct clock_event_device *dev, enum clock_event_mode mode) { if (dev->mode != mode) {
dev->set_mode(mode, dev);
/* WARN_ON? Currently available modes shouldn't fail */nit: Why the WARN_ON and '?' in the comment?
@@ -446,8 +451,14 @@ int __clockevents_update_freq(struct clock_event_device *dev, u32 freq) if (dev->mode == CLOCK_EVT_MODE_ONESHOT) return clockevents_program_event(dev, dev->next_event, false);
if (dev->mode == CLOCK_EVT_MODE_PERIODIC)dev->set_mode(CLOCK_EVT_MODE_PERIODIC, dev);
if (dev->mode == CLOCK_EVT_MODE_PERIODIC) {/* WARN_ON? Shouldn't fail while setting PERIODIC MODE */and here?
I tried to write both question and answer in the same line :) WARN_ON ?, i.e. why do we have WARN_ON_ONCE() here? Answer: Shouldn't fail while setting PERIODIC MODE
Let me know how should I write it to make it more clear. Maybe jus:
/* Shouldn't fail while setting PERIODIC MODE */