Hello, On Wed, Jan 22, 2025 at 04:58:26PM +0800, Chen Wang wrote: > On 2025/1/21 19:14, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: > > On Wed, Dec 04, 2024 at 11:17:18AM +0800, Chen Wang wrote: > > > + ret = devm_clk_rate_exclusive_get(dev, clk); > > > + if (ret) > > > + return dev_err_probe(dev, ret, "failed to get exclusive rate\n"); > > > + > > > + ddata->clk_rate_hz = clk_get_rate(clk); > > > + if (!ddata->clk_rate_hz || ddata->clk_rate_hz > NSEC_PER_SEC) > > > > Please add a comment about why you check for > NSEC_PER_SEC. > > Seems no need to check this (> NSEC_PER_SEC ), I will remove it in next > version. The rational is usually that mul_u64_u64_div_u64(ddata->clk_rate_hz, state->period, NSEC_PER_SEC) cannot overflow. Your driver relies on that, too. (Which somewhat proves that a comment is indeed necessary :-) Best regards Uwe
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
