On Thu, 14. Nov 17:47, Jocelyn Falempe wrote: > On 11/11/2024 17:33, Murad Masimov wrote: > > If the value of the clock variable is higher than 800000, the value of the > > variable m, which is used as a divisor, will remain zero, because > > (clock * testp) will be higher than vcomax in every loop iteration, which > > leads to skipping every iteration and leaving variable m unmodified. > > > > Clamp value of the clock variable between the lower and the upper limits. > > It should be correct, since there is already a similar lower limit check. > > I don't think it is correct. > > If the clock asked is > 800000, then delta > premitteddelta, and it will > return -EINVAL. In many cases when clock is > 800000, the check won't be reached as the division by "m" variable containing a zero value will have occured just before. > With your patch it will instead configure the clock to 800000 which is too > low for the mode asked and will result in corrupted output. Worth moving the check just after the loop or e.g. explicitly denying clocks > 800000 at the beginning of the function?
