Re: [PATCH v3 26/26] media: dvb-frontends: tda10048: Make the range of z explicit.
From: Ricardo Ribalda <hidden>
Date: 2024-05-03 11:57:20
Also in:
linux-arm-msm, linux-media, linux-mediatek, linux-staging, linux-sunxi, linux-tegra, lkml
I am trying to get the DS, but https://www.nxp.com/acrobat_download/literature/9397/75015931.pdf is a dead links now. Anyone have access to the datasheet? Thanks! On Fri, 3 May 2024 at 13:55, Dan Carpenter [off-list ref] wrote:
On Fri, May 03, 2024 at 11:27:58AM +0100, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:quoted
Em Mon, 29 Apr 2024 15:05:05 +0000 Ricardo Ribalda [off-list ref] escreveu:quoted
We do not expect the sample_freq to be over 613MHz. Found by cocci: drivers/media/dvb-frontends/tda10048.c:345:1-7: WARNING: do_div() does a 64-by-32 division, please consider using div64_u64 instead. Signed-off-by: Ricardo Ribalda <redacted> --- drivers/media/dvb-frontends/tda10048.c | 4 +++- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)diff --git a/drivers/media/dvb-frontends/tda10048.c b/drivers/media/dvb-frontends/tda10048.c index 3e725cdcc66b..1886f733dbbf 100644 --- a/drivers/media/dvb-frontends/tda10048.c +++ b/drivers/media/dvb-frontends/tda10048.c@@ -328,7 +328,8 @@ static int tda10048_set_wref(struct dvb_frontend *fe, u32 sample_freq_hz, u32 bw) { struct tda10048_state *state = fe->demodulator_priv; - u64 t, z; + u32 z; + u64 t; dprintk(1, "%s()\n", __func__);@@ -341,6 +342,7 @@ static int tda10048_set_wref(struct dvb_frontend *fe, u32 sample_freq_hz, /* t *= 2147483648 on 32bit platforms */ t *= (2048 * 1024); t *= 1024; + /* Sample frequency is under 613MHz */Are you sure about that? Some DVB devices have very high frequency clocks, specially if they're also used for satellite, so I can't be sure by just looking at the driver's code. Also, we had already a bunch of regressions with "fixes" like this that actually broke frontend drivers.This patch preserves the existing behavior. The sample_freq_hz variable is a u32 so, in the original code, z couldn't have been more than U32_MAX even though it was declared as a u64. It's possible that the original code was wrong. We have seen that in other places in this patchset. Adding a note about the datasheet is also a good idea. regards, dan carpenter
-- Ricardo Ribalda _______________________________________________ linux-arm-kernel mailing list linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel