Hi Stefen,
On Wed, 3 Jun 2015 16:37:28 -0700
Stephen Boyd <sboyd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 05/20, Boris Brezillon wrote:
> > Clock rates are stored in an unsigned long field, but ->determine_rate()
> > (which returns a rounded rate from a requested one) returns a long
> > value (errors are reported using negative error codes), which can lead
> > to long overflow if the clock rate exceed 2Ghz.
> >
> > Change ->determine_rate() prototype to return 0 or an error code, and pass
> > a pointer to a clk_rate_request structure containing the expected target
> > rate and the rate constraints imposed by clk users.
> >
> > The clk_rate_request structure might be extended in the future to contain
> > other kind of constraints like the rounding policy, the maximum clock
> > inaccuracy or other things that are not yet supported by the CCF
> > (power consumption constraints ?).
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > CC: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@xxxxxxx>
> > CC: Tony Lindgren <tony@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > CC: Ralf Baechle <ralf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > CC: "Emilio López" <emilio@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > CC: Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > CC: Tero Kristo <t-kristo@xxxxxx>
> > CC: linux-doc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > CC: linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > CC: linux-arm-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > CC: linux-omap@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > CC: linux-mips@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > ---
> >
> > Hi Stephen,
> >
> > This patch is based on clk-next and contains the changes you suggested
> > in your previous review.
> >
> > It was tested on sama5d4 and compile tested on several ARM platforms
> > (those enabled in multi_v7_defconfig).
> >
>
> Thanks. I think we should wait until the next -rc1 drops to apply the
> patch for the next merge window. That will make it least likely to conflict
> with other trees, and we can provide it on a stable branch should there
> be clock providers going through other trees somewhere. Please
> remind me if I forget.
No problem.
>
> > @@ -1186,15 +1191,21 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(__clk_determine_rate);
> > */
> > unsigned long __clk_round_rate(struct clk *clk, unsigned long rate)
> > {
> > - unsigned long min_rate;
> > - unsigned long max_rate;
> > +
> > + struct clk_rate_request req;
> > + int ret;
> >
> > if (!clk)
> > return 0;
> >
> > - clk_core_get_boundaries(clk->core, &min_rate, &max_rate);
> > + clk_core_get_boundaries(clk->core, &req.min_rate, &req.max_rate);
> > + req.rate = rate;
> > +
> > + ret = clk_core_round_rate_nolock(clk->core, &req);
> > + if (ret)
> > + return ret;
>
> This returns a negative int for unsigned long. Is that intentional?
Nope, should be replaced by 'return 0;'.
Thanks,
Boris
--
Boris Brezillon, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
http://free-electrons.com
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-doc" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
