On Thu, Jul 07, 2022 at 04:53:50PM +0200, Marek Behún wrote:
> From: Pali Rohár <pali@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> As a code cleanup for future changes, extract divisor code for SIO chip
> into new function ftdi_sio_baud_to_divisor().
>
> No functional change.
>
> Signed-off-by: Pali Rohár <pali@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Tested-by: Marek Behún <kabel@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> drivers/usb/serial/ftdi_sio.c | 34 ++++++++++++++++++++--------------
> 1 file changed, 20 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/usb/serial/ftdi_sio.c b/drivers/usb/serial/ftdi_sio.c
> index 717b97f4e094..45a4eeb1fc70 100644
> --- a/drivers/usb/serial/ftdi_sio.c
> +++ b/drivers/usb/serial/ftdi_sio.c
> @@ -1150,6 +1150,23 @@ static struct usb_serial_driver * const serial_drivers[] = {
> * ***************************************************************************
> */
>
> +static u32 ftdi_sio_baud_to_divisor(int baud)
> +{
> + switch (baud) {
> + case 300: return ftdi_sio_b300;
> + case 600: return ftdi_sio_b600;
> + case 1200: return ftdi_sio_b1200;
> + case 2400: return ftdi_sio_b2400;
> + case 4800: return ftdi_sio_b4800;
> + case 9600: return ftdi_sio_b9600;
> + case 19200: return ftdi_sio_b19200;
> + case 38400: return ftdi_sio_b38400;
> + case 57600: return ftdi_sio_b57600;
> + case 115200: return ftdi_sio_b115200;
> + default: return -1;
Why not just return 9600 as a default here like the original code did?
And returning a negative number for a u32 is not a good idea for the
obvious reasons you found when you tried to test for it...
thanks,
greg k-h
