linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 08/18] phy: ti: phy-j721e-wiz: split wiz_clock

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

Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2024 17:03:37 +0200
From: Andy Shevchenko <andy@...nel.org>
To: Siddharth Vadapalli <s-vadapalli@...com>
Cc: Vinod Koul <vkoul@...nel.org>,
	Thomas Richard <thomas.richard@...tlin.com>,
	Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
	Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl>,
	Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>,
	Haojian Zhuang <haojian.zhuang@...aro.org>,
	Vignesh R <vigneshr@...com>, Aaro Koskinen <aaro.koskinen@....fi>,
	Janusz Krzysztofik <jmkrzyszt@...il.com>,
	Andi Shyti <andi.shyti@...nel.org>, Peter Rosin <peda@...ntia.se>,
	Kishon Vijay Abraham I <kishon@...nel.org>,
	Philipp Zabel <p.zabel@...gutronix.de>,
	Lorenzo Pieralisi <lpieralisi@...nel.org>,
	Krzysztof Wilczyński <kw@...ux.com>,
	Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>, Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
	linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-omap@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org, linux-phy@...ts.infradead.org,
	linux-pci@...r.kernel.org, gregory.clement@...tlin.com,
	theo.lebrun@...tlin.com, thomas.petazzoni@...tlin.com,
	u-kumar1@...com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 08/18] phy: ti: phy-j721e-wiz: split wiz_clock_init()
 function

On Fri, Feb 16, 2024 at 02:34:39PM +0530, Siddharth Vadapalli wrote:
> On 24/02/16 11:32AM, Vinod Koul wrote:
> > On 15-02-24, 17:43, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > On Thu, Feb 15, 2024 at 04:17:53PM +0100, Thomas Richard wrote:

..

> > > (Side note, as this can be done later)
> > > 
> > > >  	if (rate >= 100000000)
> > > 
> > > > +		if (rate >= 100000000)
> > > 
> > > > +	if (rate >= 100000000)
> > > 
> > > I would make local definition and use it, we may get the global one as there
> > > are users.
> > > 
> > > #define HZ_PER_GHZ	1000000000UL
> > 
> > Better to define as:
> > #define HZ_PER_GHZ 1 * GIGA
> 
> The variable "rate" is being compared against 100 MHz and not 1 GHz.

Extremely good point why constant definitions are better (to avoid missing
or extra 0, etc)!

> The driver already has the following macros defined:
> #define REF_CLK_19_2MHZ         19200000
> #define REF_CLK_25MHZ           25000000
> #define REF_CLK_100MHZ          100000000
> #define REF_CLK_156_25MHZ       156250000
> 
> So would it be acceptable to change it to:
> 	if (rate >= REF_CLK_100MHZ)
> instead?

Sounds like a good idea to me.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko