Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
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: <http://docs.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CANCZdfrU9G1GnXoMLNZ_51Zod6FV3oupkgRtcwfVLU=OLdgEoA>