Re: [PATCH] cpufreq: cpufreq-cpu0: clk_round_rate() can return a zero upon error

["Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>]

On Tuesday, November 26, 2013 03:50:05 PM Paul Walmsley wrote:
> On 11/25/2013 09:03 PM, viresh kumar wrote:
> > On Tuesday 26 November 2013 07:31 AM, Paul Walmsley wrote:
> >> diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq-cpu0.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq-cpu0.c
> >> index d4585ce2346c..0faf756f6197 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq-cpu0.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq-cpu0.c
> >> @@ -44,7 +44,7 @@ static int cpu0_set_target(struct cpufreq_policy *policy,
> >> unsigned int index)
> >>       int ret;
> >>
> >>       freq_Hz = clk_round_rate(cpu_clk, freq_table[index].frequency * 1000);
> >> -    if (freq_Hz < 0)
> >> +    if (freq_Hz <= 0)
> >>           freq_Hz = freq_table[index].frequency * 1000;
> >>
> >>       freq_exact = freq_Hz;
> > So, we will see another patch where you will do: s/<=/== ??
> 
> Probably so for this driver - along with converting the type of freq_Hz 
> to be u64 or unsigned long.  Not sure yet about all of the other 
> drivers, since many of them are unlikely to see rates above (2^31)-1 Hz.
> 
> > I am wondering if there is any other way we can get this solved, i.e. in a
> > single patchset.
> 
> I'm trying to avoid sending up a large series that touches drivers all 
> over the tree :-(
> 
> > Otherwise, for both SPEAr and cpu0 patches:
> >
> > Acked-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
> 
> Thanks!  But I was instead hoping you might queue them up for merging 
> for v3.14?  That should greatly reduce the risk of merge conflicts.

I have a plan to queue them up for 3.14. :-)

Thanks!

-- 
I speak only for myself.
Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center.