Re: [PATCH 1/5] clk: renesas: rcar-gen2-legacy: Switch Z clock to .determine_rate()

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Hi Simon,

On Mon, Sep 2, 2019 at 10:31 AM Simon Horman <horms@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 30, 2019 at 10:43:01AM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 1:09 PM Simon Horman <horms@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 02:52:34PM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> > > > As the .round_rate() callback returns a long clock rate, it cannot
> > > > return clock rates that do not fit in signed long, but do fit in
> > > > unsigned long.  Hence switch the Z clock on R-Car Gen2 from the old
> > > > .round_rate() callback to the newer .determine_rate() callback, which
> > > > does not suffer from this limitation.
> > > >
> > > > This includes implementing range checking.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@xxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > > > --- a/drivers/clk/renesas/clk-rcar-gen2.c
> > > > +++ b/drivers/clk/renesas/clk-rcar-gen2.c
> > > > @@ -66,19 +66,22 @@ static unsigned long cpg_z_clk_recalc_rate(struct clk_hw *hw,
> > > >       return div_u64((u64)parent_rate * mult, 32);
> > > >  }
> > > >
> > > > -static long cpg_z_clk_round_rate(struct clk_hw *hw, unsigned long rate,
> > > > -                              unsigned long *parent_rate)
> > > > +static int cpg_z_clk_determine_rate(struct clk_hw *hw,
> > > > +                                 struct clk_rate_request *req)
> > > >  {
> > > > -     unsigned long prate  = *parent_rate;
> > > > -     unsigned int mult;
> > > > +     unsigned long prate = req->best_parent_rate;
> > > > +     unsigned int min_mult, max_mult, mult;
> > > >
> > > > -     if (!prate)
> > > > -             prate = 1;
> > > > +     min_mult = max(div_u64(req->min_rate * 32ULL, prate), 1ULL);
> > > > +     max_mult = min(div_u64(req->max_rate * 32ULL, prate), 32ULL);
> > >
> > > nit: the type of the second parameter doesn't look correct to me,
> > > div_u64 expects a u32 divisor.
> >
> > Yes, this should use div64_ul() instead.
>
> Ok, but in that case should the constants be "UL" instead of "UUL" ?

The first or the second? ;-)

The multiplication should always be calculated using 64-bit arithmetic,
hence the first ULL suffix.
The max() macro needs two parameters of the same type, and
div64_ul() returns u64, hence the second ULL suffix.

Gr{oetje,eeting}s,

                        Geert

-- 
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
                                -- Linus Torvalds



[Index of Archives]     [Linux Samsung SOC]     [Linux Wireless]     [Linux Kernel]     [ATH6KL]     [Linux Bluetooth]     [Linux Netdev]     [Kernel Newbies]     [IDE]     [Security]     [Git]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux ATA RAID]     [Samba]     [Device Mapper]

  Powered by Linux