Re: [PATCH 1/2] cpufreq: arm_big_little: check if the frequency is set correctly

[Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>]

On 31/03/15 10:24, Sudeep Holla wrote:
> On 31/03/15 02:48, Michael Turquette wrote:

[...]

>> clk_set_rate returns an error (and always has), so it seems to me that
>> this patch is unnecessary. bL_cpufreq_set_rate checks for an error from
>> clk_set_rate and handles it.
>>
>
> No that's not correct, may be I was not clear earlier. Let me explain
> with the stack trace.
>
> bL_cpufreq_set_target(returns 0 even when clock driver returned error)
>           |
>           V
> clk_set_rate(returns whatever it get from clk_core_set_rate_nolock)
>           |
>           V
> clk_core_set_rate_nolock(always return 0 after calling clk_change_rate)
>           |
>           V
> clk_change_rate(void function, so no return)
>           |
>           V
> clk->ops->set_rate(i.e. <clock_driver_set_rate>)
>
> Now for drivers/clk/clk.c IIUC, the return value from clk->ops->set_rate
> is not checked. Now if <clock_driver_set_rate> returns error when h/w
> fails to set the rate, I would like to know how the error returned by
> <clock_driver_set_rate> is returned and received by clk_set_rate.
> Correct me if I am missing anything in the above sequence.
>

Any input on this ? or am I taking non-sense here ?

Regards,
Sudeep