Hi, On Thu, Jun 30, 2022 at 10:19 AM Vijaya Krishna Nivarthi (Temp) (QUIC) <quic_vnivarth@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Greg KH <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2022 8:31 PM > > To: Vijaya Krishna Nivarthi (Temp) (QUIC) <quic_vnivarth@xxxxxxxxxxx> > > Cc: agross@xxxxxxxxxx; bjorn.andersson@xxxxxxxxxx; > > konrad.dybcio@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; jirislaby@xxxxxxxxxx; linux-arm- > > msm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-serial@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux- > > kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Mukesh Savaliya (QUIC) > > <quic_msavaliy@xxxxxxxxxxx>; dianders@xxxxxxxxxxxx; > > mka@xxxxxxxxxxxx; swboyd@xxxxxxxxxxxx > > Subject: Re: [V2] tty: serial: qcom-geni-serial: Fix get_clk_div_rate() which > > otherwise could return a sub-optimal clock rate. > > > > WARNING: This email originated from outside of Qualcomm. Please be wary > > of any links or attachments, and do not enable macros. > > > > On Wed, Jun 29, 2022 at 03:30:41PM +0530, Vijaya Krishna Nivarthi wrote: > > > In the logic around call to clk_round_rate(), for some corner > > > conditions, > > > get_clk_div_rate() could return an sub-optimal clock rate. Also, if an > > > exact clock rate was not found lowest clock was being returned. > > > > > > Search for suitable clock rate in 2 steps > > > a) exact match or within 2% tolerance > > > b) within 5% tolerance > > > This also takes care of corner conditions. > > > > > > Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > Did the test robot really report the original issue, or just the v2 change? > > > > thanks, > > > > greg k-h > > Test robot raised error for v1 patch and (I think) it got addressed in v2 with call to div_u64. > V2 doesn't have this error but other warnings which I am addressing along with other feedback. > Below is the error raised for v1. I think the adding of the "Reported-by" only really makes sense if the commit landed and then you fixed the robot-reported bug in a separate commit. If it reported problems in v1 and you fix them in v2 you shouldn't add the tag. -Doug
