From: lars@metafoo.de (Lars-Peter Clausen)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH] clk: Add axi-clkgen driver
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2013 11:00:56 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <50FFB4D8.5060801@metafoo.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20130122175552.24671.27893@quantum>
On 01/22/2013 06:55 PM, Mike Turquette wrote:
> Quoting Lars-Peter Clausen (2013-01-09 10:12:00)
> <snip>
>> +static void axi_clkgen_write(struct axi_clkgen *axi_clkgen,
>> + unsigned int reg, unsigned int val)
>> +{
>> + iowrite32(val, axi_clkgen->base + reg);
>
> Silly question: any reason to use this over readl()? This is more for
> my understanding than a real criticism.
I think I read somewhere at some point that ioread{8,16,32} is preferred
over write{b,h,l} in new code.
>
>> +}
>> +
>> +static void axi_clkgen_read(struct axi_clkgen *axi_clkgen,
>> + unsigned int reg, unsigned int *val)
>> +{
>> + *val = ioread32(axi_clkgen->base + reg);
>
> Same as above, any reason to use this over writel?
Same answer.
>
> <snip>
>> +static unsigned long axi_clkgen_recalc_rate(struct clk_hw *clk_hw,
>> + unsigned long parent_rate)
>> +{
>> + struct axi_clkgen *axi_clkgen = clk_hw_to_axi_clkgen(clk_hw);
>> + unsigned int d, m, dout;
>> + unsigned int reg;
>> +
>> + axi_clkgen_read(axi_clkgen, AXI_CLKGEN_REG_CLK_OUT1, ®);
>> + dout = (reg & 0x3f) + ((reg >> 6) & 0x3f);
>> + axi_clkgen_read(axi_clkgen, AXI_CLKGEN_REG_CLK_DIV, ®);
>> + d = (reg & 0x3f) + ((reg >> 6) & 0x3f);
>> + axi_clkgen_read(axi_clkgen, AXI_CLKGEN_REG_CLK_FB1, ®);
>> + m = (reg & 0x3f) + ((reg >> 6) & 0x3f);
>> +
>> + if (d == 0 || dout == 0)
>> + return 0;
>> +
>> + return parent_rate / d * m / dout;
>
> Any chance of overflow here? Maybe do_div should be used?
Not if all the parameters are within spec. But since this is on a slowpath I
guess it does not hurt to use do_div.
Will send a v2.
Thanks for the review,
- Lars
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@metafoo.de>
To: Mike Turquette <mturquette@linaro.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] clk: Add axi-clkgen driver
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2013 11:00:56 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <50FFB4D8.5060801@metafoo.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20130122175552.24671.27893@quantum>
On 01/22/2013 06:55 PM, Mike Turquette wrote:
> Quoting Lars-Peter Clausen (2013-01-09 10:12:00)
> <snip>
>> +static void axi_clkgen_write(struct axi_clkgen *axi_clkgen,
>> + unsigned int reg, unsigned int val)
>> +{
>> + iowrite32(val, axi_clkgen->base + reg);
>
> Silly question: any reason to use this over readl()? This is more for
> my understanding than a real criticism.
I think I read somewhere at some point that ioread{8,16,32} is preferred
over write{b,h,l} in new code.
>
>> +}
>> +
>> +static void axi_clkgen_read(struct axi_clkgen *axi_clkgen,
>> + unsigned int reg, unsigned int *val)
>> +{
>> + *val = ioread32(axi_clkgen->base + reg);
>
> Same as above, any reason to use this over writel?
Same answer.
>
> <snip>
>> +static unsigned long axi_clkgen_recalc_rate(struct clk_hw *clk_hw,
>> + unsigned long parent_rate)
>> +{
>> + struct axi_clkgen *axi_clkgen = clk_hw_to_axi_clkgen(clk_hw);
>> + unsigned int d, m, dout;
>> + unsigned int reg;
>> +
>> + axi_clkgen_read(axi_clkgen, AXI_CLKGEN_REG_CLK_OUT1, ®);
>> + dout = (reg & 0x3f) + ((reg >> 6) & 0x3f);
>> + axi_clkgen_read(axi_clkgen, AXI_CLKGEN_REG_CLK_DIV, ®);
>> + d = (reg & 0x3f) + ((reg >> 6) & 0x3f);
>> + axi_clkgen_read(axi_clkgen, AXI_CLKGEN_REG_CLK_FB1, ®);
>> + m = (reg & 0x3f) + ((reg >> 6) & 0x3f);
>> +
>> + if (d == 0 || dout == 0)
>> + return 0;
>> +
>> + return parent_rate / d * m / dout;
>
> Any chance of overflow here? Maybe do_div should be used?
Not if all the parameters are within spec. But since this is on a slowpath I
guess it does not hurt to use do_div.
Will send a v2.
Thanks for the review,
- Lars
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-01-23 10:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-01-09 18:12 [PATCH] clk: Add axi-clkgen driver Lars-Peter Clausen
2013-01-09 18:12 ` Lars-Peter Clausen
2013-01-22 17:55 ` Mike Turquette
2013-01-23 10:00 ` Lars-Peter Clausen [this message]
2013-01-23 10:00 ` Lars-Peter Clausen
2013-01-23 10:27 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2013-01-23 10:27 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2013-01-23 10:49 ` Lars-Peter Clausen
2013-01-23 10:49 ` Lars-Peter Clausen
2013-01-23 10:57 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2013-01-23 10:57 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2013-01-22 18:08 ` Josh Cartwright
2013-01-22 18:08 ` Josh Cartwright
2013-01-23 9:57 ` Lars-Peter Clausen
2013-01-23 9:57 ` Lars-Peter Clausen
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=50FFB4D8.5060801@metafoo.de \
--to=lars@metafoo.de \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.