Re: [PATCH 7/7] memory: tegra: Rework update_clock_tree_delay()

[Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org>]

On 15/04/2024 13:22, Diogo Ivo wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 13, 2024 at 10:08:40AM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On 09/04/2024 11:46, Diogo Ivo wrote:
>>> Further streamline this function by moving the delay post-processing
>>> to the callers, leaving it only with the task of returing the measured
>>> delay values.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Diogo Ivo <diogo.ivo@tecnico.ulisboa.pt>
>>> ---
>>>  drivers/memory/tegra/tegra210-emc-cc-r21021.c | 120 +++++++-----------
>>>  1 file changed, 46 insertions(+), 74 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/memory/tegra/tegra210-emc-cc-r21021.c b/drivers/memory/tegra/tegra210-emc-cc-r21021.c
>>> index ec2f84758d55..5e2c84fc835c 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/memory/tegra/tegra210-emc-cc-r21021.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/memory/tegra/tegra210-emc-cc-r21021.c
>>> @@ -105,7 +105,7 @@ enum {
>>>  			  next->ptfv_list[w])) /			\
>>>  			(next->ptfv_list[w] + 1);			\
>>>  									\
>>> -		emc_dbg(emc, EMA_UPDATES, "%s: (s=%lu) EMA: %u\n",	\
>>> +		emc_dbg(emc, EMA_UPDATES, "%s: (s=%u) EMA: %u\n",	\
>>
>> Does not look related.
> 
> This was necessary to avoid compiler warnings as before when we were calling
> this macro from update_clock_tree_delay() the value we were passing in was
> declared as an unsigned long and now it is declared as u32, which it still
> big enough for the values we are dealing with here.

OK, that's difficult to see from the patch context but looks right.

Best regards,
Krzysztof