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-omap" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html