Thread (26 messages) 26 messages, 2 authors, 2015-05-19

[PATCH 1/8] clk: sunxi: factors: Add m_start parameters

From: Chen-Yu Tsai <hidden>
Date: 2015-05-15 07:48:38
Also in: linux-clk

On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 3:43 PM, Maxime Ripard
[off-list ref] wrote:
On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 05:12:07PM +0800, Chen-Yu Tsai wrote:
quoted
On Sat, May 2, 2015 at 7:24 PM, Maxime Ripard
[off-list ref] wrote:
quoted
Some clocks start incrementing the m factor at 0. Add a parameter to handle
it just like we did for the N factor.

Since the behaviour until now was to assume that the m factor was starting
at 1, we also need to fix the other users.

Signed-off-by: Maxime Ripard <redacted>
---
 drivers/clk/sunxi/clk-factors.c    | 11 ++++++++++-
 drivers/clk/sunxi/clk-factors.h    |  2 ++
 drivers/clk/sunxi/clk-mod0.c       |  2 ++
 drivers/clk/sunxi/clk-sun8i-mbus.c |  2 ++
 drivers/clk/sunxi/clk-sun9i-core.c |  6 ++++++
 drivers/clk/sunxi/clk-sunxi.c      | 10 ++++++++++
 6 files changed, 32 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/clk/sunxi/clk-factors.c b/drivers/clk/sunxi/clk-factors.c
index 8c20190a3e9f..100a711c3e3d 100644
--- a/drivers/clk/sunxi/clk-factors.c
+++ b/drivers/clk/sunxi/clk-factors.c
@@ -56,15 +56,24 @@ static unsigned long clk_factors_recalc_rate(struct clk_hw *hw,
        /* Get each individual factor if applicable */
        if (config->nwidth != SUNXI_FACTORS_NOT_APPLICABLE)
                n = FACTOR_GET(config->nshift, config->nwidth, reg);
+
        if (config->kwidth != SUNXI_FACTORS_NOT_APPLICABLE)
                k = FACTOR_GET(config->kshift, config->kwidth, reg);
+
        if (config->mwidth != SUNXI_FACTORS_NOT_APPLICABLE)
                m = FACTOR_GET(config->mshift, config->mwidth, reg);
+       else
+               /* Make sure we don't get a division by zero */
+               m = 1;
What happens when mwidth is valid, m_start = 0, and m = 0?
That's a very good question. A division by zero in the kernel, I'd
say.

But I don't think we can end up in such a case today, and it's
somewhat expected that it will happen, and no clock have looked at can
actually end up in such a case.
It's possible if the bootloader left the clock in an invalid state.
How about just returning 0, indicating an invalid rate, early?
quoted
Other than that, this one looks good.
Thanks!

--
Maxime Ripard, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering
http://free-electrons.com
Keyboard shortcuts
hback out one level
jnext message in thread
kprevious message in thread
ldrill in
Escclose help / fold thread tree
?toggle this help