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

[Paul Walmsley <pwalmsley@nvidia.com>]

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.

- Paul