linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] cpufreq: cpufreq-cpu0: clk_round

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <52942B87.1040203@linaro.org>
Date:	Tue, 26 Nov 2013 10:33:03 +0530
From:	viresh kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
To:	Paul Walmsley <pwalmsley@...dia.com>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>
CC:	Mike Turquette <mturquette@...aro.org>, cpufreq@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] cpufreq: cpufreq-cpu0: clk_round_rate() can return a
 zero upon error

On Tuesday 26 November 2013 07:31 AM, Paul Walmsley wrote:
> 
> Treat both negative and zero return values from clk_round_rate()
> as errors.  This is needed since subsequent patches will convert
> clk_round_rate()'s return value to be an unsigned type, rather
> than a signed type, since some clock sources can generate rates
> higher than (2^31)-1 Hz.
> 
> Eventually, when calling clk_round_rate(), only a return value of
> zero will be considered a error.  All other values will be
> considered valid rates.  The comparison against values less than
> 0 is kept to preserve the correct behavior in the meantime.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Paul Walmsley <paul@...an.com>
> Cc: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>
> Cc: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
> Cc: Mike Turquette <mturquette@...aro.org>
> ---
> Applies on v3.13-rc1.  See also:
> 
> http://marc.info/?l=linux-arm-kernel&m=138542591313620&w=2
> 
>  drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq-cpu0.c |    2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq-cpu0.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq-cpu0.c
> index d4585ce2346c..0faf756f6197 100644
> --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq-cpu0.c
> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq-cpu0.c
> @@ -44,7 +44,7 @@ static int cpu0_set_target(struct cpufreq_policy *policy,
> unsigned int index)
>      int ret;
> 
>      freq_Hz = clk_round_rate(cpu_clk, freq_table[index].frequency * 1000);
> -    if (freq_Hz < 0)
> +    if (freq_Hz <= 0)
>          freq_Hz = freq_table[index].frequency * 1000;
> 
>      freq_exact = freq_Hz;

So, we will see another patch where you will do: s/<=/== ??
I am wondering if there is any other way we can get this solved, i.e. in a
single patchset.

Otherwise, for both SPEAr and cpu0 patches:

Acked-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/