I am trying to get the DS, but https://www.nxp.com/acrobat_download/literature/9397/75015931.pdf is a dead links now. Anyone have access to the datasheet? Thanks! On Fri, 3 May 2024 at 13:55, Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Fri, May 03, 2024 at 11:27:58AM +0100, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote: > > Em Mon, 29 Apr 2024 15:05:05 +0000 > > Ricardo Ribalda <ribalda@xxxxxxxxxxxx> escreveu: > > > > > We do not expect the sample_freq to be over 613MHz. > > > > > > Found by cocci: > > > drivers/media/dvb-frontends/tda10048.c:345:1-7: WARNING: do_div() does a 64-by-32 division, please consider using div64_u64 instead. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Ricardo Ribalda <ribalda@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > --- > > > drivers/media/dvb-frontends/tda10048.c | 4 +++- > > > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/media/dvb-frontends/tda10048.c b/drivers/media/dvb-frontends/tda10048.c > > > index 3e725cdcc66b..1886f733dbbf 100644 > > > --- a/drivers/media/dvb-frontends/tda10048.c > > > +++ b/drivers/media/dvb-frontends/tda10048.c > > > @@ -328,7 +328,8 @@ static int tda10048_set_wref(struct dvb_frontend *fe, u32 sample_freq_hz, > > > u32 bw) > > > { > > > struct tda10048_state *state = fe->demodulator_priv; > > > - u64 t, z; > > > + u32 z; > > > + u64 t; > > > > > > dprintk(1, "%s()\n", __func__); > > > > > > @@ -341,6 +342,7 @@ static int tda10048_set_wref(struct dvb_frontend *fe, u32 sample_freq_hz, > > > /* t *= 2147483648 on 32bit platforms */ > > > t *= (2048 * 1024); > > > t *= 1024; > > > + /* Sample frequency is under 613MHz */ > > > > Are you sure about that? Some DVB devices have very high frequency > > clocks, specially if they're also used for satellite, so I can't > > be sure by just looking at the driver's code. > > > > Also, we had already a bunch of regressions with "fixes" like this > > that actually broke frontend drivers. > > This patch preserves the existing behavior. The sample_freq_hz variable > is a u32 so, in the original code, z couldn't have been more than > U32_MAX even though it was declared as a u64. > > It's possible that the original code was wrong. We have seen that in > other places in this patchset. Adding a note about the datasheet is > also a good idea. > > regards, > dan carpenter > -- Ricardo Ribalda
