Hello,
On Fri, Oct 04, 2024 at 05:07:55PM +0300, Antoniu Miclaus wrote:
> +static int ad485x_set_sampling_freq(struct ad485x_state *st, unsigned int freq)
> +{
> + struct pwm_state cnv_state = {
> + .duty_cycle = AD485X_T_CNVH_NS,
> + .enabled = true,
> + };
> + int ret;
> +
> + freq = clamp(freq, 0, st->info->throughput);
freq == 0 will become a problem in the next code line. Increase the
lower limit of the clamp to 1?!
> + cnv_state.period = DIV_ROUND_CLOSEST_ULL(GIGA, freq);
Is ROUND_CLOSEST really the right thing here? The resulting period might
result in a frequency higher than freq, still more given that
pwm_apply_might_sleep() might round the period further down.
> + ret = pwm_apply_might_sleep(st->cnv, &cnv_state);
> + if (ret)
> + return ret;
> +
> + st->sampling_freq = freq;
> +
> + return 0;
> +}
> [...]
> +static int ad485x_probe(struct spi_device *spi)
> +{
> [...]
> + st->cnv = devm_pwm_get(&spi->dev, NULL);
> + if (IS_ERR(st->cnv))
> + return PTR_ERR(st->cnv);
devm_pwm_get() is silent on error, so adding an error message here would
be appropriate. I think the same applies to spi_get_device_match_data()
below.
> + st->info = spi_get_device_match_data(spi);
> + if (!st->info)
> + return -ENODEV;
> [...]
Best regards
Uwe
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
