linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5] clk: add CS2000 Fractional-N driver

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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <87mvumln67.wl%kuninori.morimoto.gx@renesas.com>
Date:	Tue, 10 Nov 2015 00:26:31 +0000
From:	Kuninori Morimoto <kuninori.morimoto.gx@...esas.com>
To:	Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
CC:	Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...eaurora.org>, Simon <horms@...ge.net.au>,
	Michael Turquette <mturquette@...libre.com>,
	Magnus <magnus.damm@...il.com>,
	Linux-SH <linux-sh@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux-Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	<linux-clk@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5] clk: add CS2000 Fractional-N driver


Hi Andy

> >> > +static int cs2000_wait_pll_lock(struct cs2000_priv *priv)
> >> > +{
> >> > +       struct device *dev = priv_to_dev(priv);
> >> > +       s32 val;
> >> > +       unsigned int i;
> >> > +
> >> > +       for (i = 0; i < 256; i++) {
> >> > +               val = cs2000_read(priv, DEVICE_CTRL);
> >> > +               if (val < 0)
> >> > +                       return val;
> >> > +               if (!(val & PLL_UNLOCK))
> >> > +                       return 0;
> >> > +               udelay(1);
> >> > +       }
> >>
> >> unsigned int i = 256;
> >>
> >> do {
> >> val = read();
> >> …
> >> while ((val & PLL_UNLOCK) && --i);
> >>
> >> if (!i) {
> >>  …
> >>  return -EIO;
> >>
> >> Actually -ETIMEDOUT ?
> >>
> >> }
> >
> > What is the motivation of above ?
> > It needs "i" anyway ? it needs to check (val < 0) anyway ?
> > what is the difference between do {} while <-> for(xxx)
> 
> Just a style.
> Still the question about error code.

OK. do {} while is not bad, but for () loop
can avoid pointless check I think. I would like to use it.
And yes, next version will use -ETIMEDOUT

> >> > +       of_property_read_string(np, "clock-output-names", &name);
> >>
> >> What about device property API?
> >
> > Sorry, which API ?
> > Many other clk-xxx.c are using this style ?
> 
> Never mind then.

Thanks
--
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/