On 21. 9. 16. 오전 10:28, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
15.09.2021 21:31, Chanwoo Choi пишет:
On 21. 9. 15. 오후 12:51, Chanwoo Choi wrote:
Hi,
On 21. 9. 13. 오전 3:44, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
EMC clock is always-on and can't be zero. Check whether clk_round_rate()
returns zero rate and error out if it does. It can return zero if clock
tree isn't initialized properly.
Signed-off-by: Dmitry Osipenko <digetx@xxxxxxxxx>
---
drivers/devfreq/tegra30-devfreq.c | 4 ++--
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/devfreq/tegra30-devfreq.c
b/drivers/devfreq/tegra30-devfreq.c
index d83fdc2713ed..65ecf17a36f4 100644
--- a/drivers/devfreq/tegra30-devfreq.c
+++ b/drivers/devfreq/tegra30-devfreq.c
@@ -891,9 +891,9 @@ static int tegra_devfreq_probe(struct
platform_device *pdev)
return err;
rate = clk_round_rate(tegra->emc_clock, ULONG_MAX);
- if (rate < 0) {
+ if (rate <= 0) {
dev_err(&pdev->dev, "Failed to round clock rate: %ld\n",
rate);
- return rate;
+ return rate ?: -EINVAL;
If rate is 0, It doesn't return and fall-through? even if print the
error message. 'return rate ?: -EINVAL;' style is strange for me
because it doesn't specify the 'return value' when rate is true.
It's not clear to me what do you mean by "return and fall-through".
It specifies the 'return value' when rate is true. It's a short form of
"rate ? rate : -EINVAL".
I has not known this short form. Thanks for comment. I understand.
--
Best Regards,
Samsung Electronics
Chanwoo Choi
