Re: [PATCH] cpufreq: fix sign check of an unsigned variable in cpufreq-cpu0

[Mike Turquette <mturquette@linaro.org>]

Quoting Viresh Kumar (2013-02-25 04:09:47)
> On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 5:02 PM, Guennadi Liakhovetski
> <g.liakhovetski@gmx.de> wrote:
> > A "< 0" test for an unsigned variable is meaningless, change the variable
> > to signed.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Guennadi Liakhovetski <g.liakhovetski@gmx.de>
> > ---
> >
> > stable?
> >
> >  drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq-cpu0.c |    3 ++-
> >  1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq-cpu0.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq-cpu0.c
> > index 52bf36d..e7bad3c 100644
> > --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq-cpu0.c
> > +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq-cpu0.c
> > @@ -44,7 +44,8 @@ static int cpu0_set_target(struct cpufreq_policy *policy,
> >  {
> >         struct cpufreq_freqs freqs;
> >         struct opp *opp;
> > -       unsigned long freq_Hz, volt = 0, volt_old = 0, tol = 0;
> > +       unsigned long volt = 0, volt_old = 0, tol = 0;
> > +       long freq_Hz;
> 
> Acked-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
> 
> The disease is spread across a bigger region though.
> 
> @Mike: clk_round_rate returns long and __clk_round_rate returns unsigned long
> and clk_ops->round_rate returns long again.. Don't you see something
> strange here?

Yes, this is in my todo list.  I have a branch with some relevant
changes but I haven't posted it yet.

Regards,
Mike