On Tue, Dec 20, 2022 at 07:11:51PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > On Tue, Dec 20, 2022 at 04:48:06PM +0000, Hanna Hawa wrote: ... > > - return DIV_ROUND_CLOSEST(ic_clk * tSYMBOL, MICRO) - 8 + offset; > > + return DIV_ROUND_CLOSEST_ULL((u64)ic_clk * tSYMBOL, MICRO) - 8 + > > + offset; > > Broken indentation. > > ... > > > - return DIV_ROUND_CLOSEST(ic_clk * (tSYMBOL + tf), MICRO) - 3 + offset; > > + return DIV_ROUND_CLOSEST_ULL((u64)ic_clk * (tSYMBOL + tf), > > + MICRO) - 3 + offset; > > I would still go with 'MICRO) -' part to be on the previous line despite being > over 80, this is logical split which increases readability. > > > - return DIV_ROUND_CLOSEST(ic_clk * (tLOW + tf), MICRO) - 1 + offset; > > + return DIV_ROUND_CLOSEST_ULL((u64)ic_clk * (tLOW + tf), MICRO) - 1 + > > + offset; > > Broken indentation. That said, can you just follow what I have said in a review of v3? -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
