[U-Boot] Question about compile warnings of exynos clock

[Joonyoung Shim <jy0922.shim@samsung.com>]

Hi,

On 01/13/2015 11:27 AM, Simon Glass wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On 12 January 2015 at 18:24, Joonyoung Shim <jy0922.shim@samsung.com> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I found below compile warnings,
>>
>>   CC      arch/arm/cpu/armv7/exynos/clock.o
>> arch/arm/cpu/armv7/exynos/clock.c: In function ?clock_get_periph_rate?:
>> arch/arm/cpu/armv7/exynos/clock.c:265:47: warning: array subscript is above array bounds [-Warray-bounds]
>>   struct clk_bit_info *bit_info = &clk_bit_info[peripheral];
>>                                                ^
>> arch/arm/cpu/armv7/exynos/clock.c:265:47: warning: array subscript is above array bounds [-Warray-bounds]
>>
>> ...
>>> static unsigned long exynos5_get_periph_rate(int peripheral)
>>> {
>>>         struct clk_bit_info *bit_info = &clk_bit_info[peripheral];
>>>
>>
>> This can access out of bounds of clk_bit_info[] array from
>> exynos5_get_periph_rate(). The peripheral value comes from
>> enum periph_id but it gets out of count clk_bit_info[] array.
>>
>> So, i don't think exynos5_get_periph_rate is working correctly.
>> Currently, exynos5_get_periph_rate is used by clock_get_periph_rate only
>> from get_pwm_clk.
>>
>> Is it ongoing to work for generic api to get the clk freq? If not,
>> let's remove exynos5_get_periph_rate and clock_get_periph_rate.
> 
> That's going in the wrong direction - these functions make the code
> much easier to follow and refactor. We should remove get_pwm_clk(),
> get_mmc_clk() etc. and use generic functions instead.
> 

I know, but current codes are wrong, so first i want to correct it even
if it is old way because it's really easy. And then we can go to generic
functions.

Thanks.