From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Guru Das Srinagesh <gurus@codeaurora.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v11 04/12] pwm: clps711x: Cast period to u32 before use
 as divisor
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2020 17:26:31 -0700
Message-ID: <20200407002630.GA7019@codeaurora.org>
References: <cover.1584667964.git.gurus@codeaurora.org>
 <3dc95ebc6539066cc58bc44c0e6e53ac979fe9a9.1584667964.git.gurus@codeaurora.org>
 <CAK8P3a0ueOXLFPd_C4nbqHwEmVOa5eFfSivbsMPKNCmjMiWF1Q@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Return-path: <linux-pwm-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from alexa-out-sd-02.qualcomm.com ([199.106.114.39]:32869 "EHLO
        alexa-out-sd-02.qualcomm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK)
        by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726287AbgDGA0c (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-pwm@vger.kernel.org>); Mon, 6 Apr 2020 20:26:32 -0400
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAK8P3a0ueOXLFPd_C4nbqHwEmVOa5eFfSivbsMPKNCmjMiWF1Q@mail.gmail.com>
Sender: linux-pwm-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-Id: linux-pwm@vger.kernel.org
To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
Cc: Linux PWM List <linux-pwm@vger.kernel.org>, Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@gmail.com>, Uwe =?utf-8?Q?Kleine-K=C3=B6nig?= <u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de>, Subbaraman Narayanamurthy <subbaram@codeaurora.org>, "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, Alexander Shiyan <shc_work@mail.ru>

On Fri, Mar 20, 2020 at 06:11:42PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 20, 2020 at 2:41 AM Guru Das Srinagesh <gurus@codeaurora.org> wrote:
> >
> > Since the PWM framework is switching struct pwm_args.period's datatype
> > to u64, prepare for this transition by typecasting it to u32.
> >
> > Also, since the dividend is still a 32-bit number, any divisor greater
> > than UINT_MAX will cause the quotient to be zero, so return 0 in that
> > case to efficiently skip the division.
> >
> > Cc: Alexander Shiyan <shc_work@mail.ru>
> > Cc: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Guru Das Srinagesh <gurus@codeaurora.org>
> 
> Reviewed-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>

The stated aim of adding the if condition is to determine when the
division operation may be skipped as the quotient would be zero anyway
[1]. That said, I think the current if condition is incorrect. The
quotient would be zero only when the denominator of the division exceeds
(v * 0xf) and not UINT_MAX. In fact, UINT_MAX has no bearing on whether
the quotient becomes zero or not.

Therefore, the correct if condition should be:

-       return DIV_ROUND_CLOSEST(v * 0xf, pwm->args.period);
+       if ((u32)pwm->args.period > (v * 0xf))
+               return 0;
+
+       return DIV_ROUND_CLOSEST(v * 0xf, (u32)pwm->args.period);

What do you think?

[1] https://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-pwm/msg11908.html

Thank you.

Guru Das.