On Thu, Oct 05, 2023 at 06:21:35AM +0000, Ryan Chen wrote:
> > From: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Sent: Tuesday, September 5, 2023 7:55 PM
> > On Tue, Sep 05, 2023 at 06:52:37AM +0000, Ryan Chen wrote:
> > > > From: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > Sent: Friday, July 14, 2023 4:55 PM
> > > > On Fri, Jul 14, 2023 at 03:45:22PM +0800, Ryan Chen wrote:
...
> > > divisor = DIV_ROUND_UP(base_clk[3],
> > i2c_bus->timing_info.bus_freq_hz);
> > > for_each_set_bit(divisor, &divisor, 32) {
> >
> > This is wrong.
> >
> > > if ((divisor + 1) <= 32)
> > > break;
> >
> > > divisor >>= 1;
> >
> > And this.
> >
> > > baseclk_idx++;
> >
> > > }
> >
> > for_each_set_bit() should use two different variables.
>
> Will update by following.
>
> for_each_set_bit(bit, &divisor, 32) {
> divisor >>= 1;
> baseclk_idx++;
> }
It's unclear what you are trying to achieve here as the code is not equivalent
to the above.
> > > } else {
> > > baseclk_idx = i + 1;
> > > divisor = DIV_ROUND_UP(base_clk[i],
> > i2c_bus->timing_info.bus_freq_hz);
> > > }
> > > }
...
> > > divisor = min_t(unsigned long, divisor, 32);
> >
> > Can't you use min()? min_t is a beast with some subtle corner cases.
> >
> Will update to
> divisor = min(divisor, (unsigned long)32);
No, the idea behind min() is that _both_ arguments are of the same type,
the proposed above is wrong.
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
