[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20201204112115.wopx5p5elgte7gad@pengutronix.de>
Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2020 12:21:15 +0100
From: Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>
To: Lino Sanfilippo <LinoSanfilippo@....de>
Cc: thierry.reding@...il.com, lee.jones@...aro.org,
nsaenzjulienne@...e.de, f.fainelli@...il.com, rjui@...adcom.com,
sbranden@...adcom.com, bcm-kernel-feedback-list@...adcom.com,
linux-pwm@...r.kernel.org, linux-rpi-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
sean@...s.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] pwm: bcm2835: Support apply function for atomic
configuration
Hello Lino,
On Fri, Dec 04, 2020 at 12:42:15AM +0100, Lino Sanfilippo wrote:
> On 29.11.20 at 19:10, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> > You're storing an unsigned long long (i.e. 64 bits) in an u32. If
> > you are sure that this won't discard relevant bits, please explain
> > this in a comment for the cursory reader.
>
> What about an extra check then to make sure that the period has not been truncated,
> e.g:
>
> value = DIV_ROUND_CLOSEST_ULL(state->period, scaler);
>
> /* dont accept a period that is too small or has been truncated */
> if ((value < PERIOD_MIN) ||
> (value != DIV_ROUND_CLOSEST_ULL(state->period, scaler)))
> return -EINVAL;
I'd make value an unsigned long long and check for > 0xffffffff instead
of repeating the (expensive) division. (Hmm, maybe the compiler is smart
enough to not actually repeat it, but still.)
Best regards
Uwe
--
Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-König |
Industrial Linux Solutions | https://www.pengutronix.de/ |
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (489 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists