Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2017 17:15:16 -0700 From: Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com> To: Ian Lepore <ian@freebsd.org> Cc: "Pedro F. Giffuni" <pfg@freebsd.org>, src-committers <src-committers@freebsd.org>, "svn-src-all@freebsd.org" <svn-src-all@freebsd.org>, "svn-src-head@freebsd.org" <svn-src-head@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: svn commit: r314186 - head/sys/arm/at91 Message-ID: <CANCZdfrU9G1GnXoMLNZ_51Zod6FV3oupkgRtcwfVLU=OLdgEoA@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <1487894717.25520.18.camel@freebsd.org> References: <201702232348.v1NNmiED031217@repo.freebsd.org> <1487894717.25520.18.camel@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 5:05 PM, Ian Lepore <ian@freebsd.org> wrote: > On Thu, 2017-02-23 at 23:48 +0000, Pedro F. Giffuni wrote: >> Author: pfg >> Date: Thu Feb 23 23:48:44 2017 >> New Revision: 314186 >> URL: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/base/314186 >> >> Log: >> at91: double assignment. >> >> Found with: coccinelle (da.cocci) >> Suggested by: cognet >> >> Modified: >> head/sys/arm/at91/at91sam9260.c >> >> Modified: head/sys/arm/at91/at91sam9260.c >> ===================================================================== >> ========= >> --- head/sys/arm/at91/at91sam9260.c Thu Feb 23 22:46:01 2017 >> (r314185) >> +++ head/sys/arm/at91/at91sam9260.c Thu Feb 23 23:48:44 2017 >> (r314186) >> @@ -193,7 +193,6 @@ at91_clock_init(void) >> */ >> clk = at91_pmc_clock_ref("pllb"); >> clk->pll_min_in = SAM9260_PLL_B_MIN_IN_FREQ; >> /* 1 MHz */ >> - clk->pll_max_in = SAM9260_PLL_B_MAX_IN_FREQ; >> /* 5 MHz */ >> clk->pll_max_in = 2999999; >> /* ~3 MHz */ >> clk->pll_min_out = SAM9260_PLL_B_MIN_OUT_FREQ; /* >> 70 MHz */ >> clk->pll_max_out = SAM9260_PLL_B_MAX_OUT_FREQ; /* >> 130 MHz */ >> > > Just looking at this by eye (but without digging out the at91 manuals) > I'd say this looks like fallout from a mismerge and the correct line to > keep would be the named constant. Keeping the one that has actually > been in effect all this time isn't the same as keeping the right one, > and this deletion may remove the only clue someone might find when they > eventually get around to debugging this (if ever, the sam9260 is a > pretty old chip). I was going to test boot on my SAM9260EK board since I had the same thought, but wasn't completely sure. Warner
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CANCZdfrU9G1GnXoMLNZ_51Zod6FV3oupkgRtcwfVLU=OLdgEoA>