Quoting Christian Marangi (2023-05-29 05:34:57) > On Mon, May 29, 2023 at 02:12:23PM +0200, Konrad Dybcio wrote: > > On 28.05.2023 14:37, Christian Marangi wrote: > > > On Sat, May 27, 2023 at 06:11:16PM +0200, Konrad Dybcio wrote: > > >> On 27.04.2023 17:07, Christian Marangi wrote: > > >>> + * Force the first conf if we can't find a correct config. > > >>> + */ > > >>> + if (unlikely(i == f->num_confs)) > > >>> + best_conf = f->confs; > > >> Is that a supported scenario or would it be a device driver / clock > > >> driver error? > > >> > > > > > > It's to handle case for the 2 continue in the loop and arriving in a > > > situation where best_conf was never set? > > > > > > Should we return a warning and an ERR_PTR? Idea was to provide a best > > > effort selection. > > Hm.. I'm not sure what's the expected behavior here.. Stephen? > > > > I have this implementation rady, if you want I can send this revision > and discuss that in v5 directly. It's WARN and returning -EINVAL. I'd only have a WARN if you never expect to hit that case. Otherwise, it should return -EINVAL and not warn. At a quick glance it sounds like some sort of rounding policy, so just make sure the round_rate/determine_rate implementation agrees with what set_rate() will do and it should be good.
