[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAPw-ZTk+-vJNriE-T_jL9U+WF1DCE9WBV1Mtz510cvUQbyU-kw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2016 09:36:07 -0700
From: Loc Ho <lho@....com>
To: Ben Hutchings <ben.hutchings@...ethink.co.uk>
Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
stable@...r.kernel.org, Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...eaurora.org>,
Sasha Levin <alexander.levin@...izon.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4.4 017/192] [PATCH 017/135] clk: xgene: Fix divider with
non-zero shift value
Hi Ben,
>> >> ------------------
>> >>
>> >> [ Upstream commit 1382ea631ddddb634850a3795527db0feeff5aaf ]
>> >>
>> >> The X-Gene clock driver missed the divider shift operation when
>> >> set the divider value.
>> >>
>> >> Signed-off-by: Loc Ho <lho@....com>
>> >> Fixes: 308964caeebc ("clk: Add APM X-Gene SoC clock driver")
>> >> Signed-off-by: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...eaurora.org>
>> >> Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <alexander.levin@...izon.com>
>> >> Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
>> >> ---
>> >> drivers/clk/clk-xgene.c | 3 ++-
>> >> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>> >>
>> >> --- a/drivers/clk/clk-xgene.c
>> >> +++ b/drivers/clk/clk-xgene.c
>> >> @@ -351,7 +351,8 @@ static int xgene_clk_set_rate(struct clk
>> >> /* Set new divider */
>> >> data = xgene_clk_read(pclk->param.divider_reg +
>> >> pclk->param.reg_divider_offset);
>> >> - data &= ~((1 << pclk->param.reg_divider_width) - 1);
>> >> + data &= ~((1 << pclk->param.reg_divider_width) - 1)
>> >> + << pclk->param.reg_divider_shift;
>> > [...]
>> >
>> > This still does the wrong thing when the shift value is non-zero: it
>> > clears all bits to the right of the divider field in data. I think the
>> > correct assignment is:
>> >
>> > data &= ~(((1 << pclk->param.reg_divider_width) - 1)
>> > << pclk->param.reg_divider_shift);
>> >
>>
>> Yes... There was an later patch that address this -
>> https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/8458361
>
> But it didn't go into this stable update, because you didn't point that
> out during review.
Sorry about this. I will keep this in mind in the future.
-Loc
Powered by blists - more mailing lists