linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 17/27] clk: sophgo: sg2042-clkgen: convert from divider_round_rate() to divider_determine

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]

Message-ID: <aWUu9JmPDgrJ5VxA@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2026 12:27:16 -0500
From: Brian Masney <bmasney@...hat.com>
To: Chen Wang <unicorn_wang@...look.com>
Cc: Michael Turquette <mturquette@...libre.com>,
	Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>, linux-clk@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Inochi Amaoto <inochiama@...il.com>,
	sophgo@...ts.linux.dev
Subject: Re: [PATCH 17/27] clk: sophgo: sg2042-clkgen: convert from
 divider_round_rate() to divider_determine_rate()

Hi Chen,

On Mon, Jan 12, 2026 at 10:57:17AM +0800, Chen Wang wrote:
> 
> On 1/9/2026 5:16 AM, Brian Masney wrote:
> > The divider_round_rate() function is now deprecated, so let's migrate
> > to divider_determine_rate() instead so that this deprecated API can be
> > removed.
> > 
> > Note that when the main function itself was migrated to use
> > determine_rate, this was mistakenly converted to:
> > 
> >      req->rate = divider_round_rate(...)
> > 
> > This is invalid in the case when an error occurs since it can set the
> > rate to a negative value.
> > 
> > Note that this commit also removes a debugging message that's not really
> > needed.
> > 
> > Fixes: 9a3b6993613d ("clk: sophgo: sg2042-clkgen: convert from round_rate() to determine_rate()")
> > Signed-off-by: Brian Masney <bmasney@...hat.com>
> > 
> > ---
> > To: Chen Wang <unicorn_wang@...look.com>
> > To: Inochi Amaoto <inochiama@...il.com>
> > Cc: sophgo@...ts.linux.dev
> > ---
> >   drivers/clk/sophgo/clk-sg2042-clkgen.c | 15 +++++----------
> >   1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/clk/sophgo/clk-sg2042-clkgen.c b/drivers/clk/sophgo/clk-sg2042-clkgen.c
> > index 683661b71787c9e5428b168502f6fbb30ea9f7da..9725ac4e050a4e6afd3fd50241fbd2fc105a31ca 100644
> > --- a/drivers/clk/sophgo/clk-sg2042-clkgen.c
> > +++ b/drivers/clk/sophgo/clk-sg2042-clkgen.c
> > @@ -180,7 +180,6 @@ static int sg2042_clk_divider_determine_rate(struct clk_hw *hw,
> >   					     struct clk_rate_request *req)
> >   {
> >   	struct sg2042_divider_clock *divider = to_sg2042_clk_divider(hw);
> > -	unsigned long ret_rate;
> >   	u32 bestdiv;
> >   	/* if read only, just return current value */
> > @@ -191,17 +190,13 @@ static int sg2042_clk_divider_determine_rate(struct clk_hw *hw,
> >   			bestdiv = readl(divider->reg) >> divider->shift;
> >   			bestdiv &= clk_div_mask(divider->width);
> >   		}
> > -		ret_rate = DIV_ROUND_UP_ULL((u64)req->best_parent_rate, bestdiv);
> > -	} else {
> > -		ret_rate = divider_round_rate(hw, req->rate, &req->best_parent_rate, NULL,
> > -					      divider->width, divider->div_flags);
> > -	}
> > +		req->rate = DIV_ROUND_UP_ULL((u64)req->best_parent_rate, bestdiv);
> > -	pr_debug("--> %s: divider_round_rate: val = %ld\n",
> > -		 clk_hw_get_name(hw), ret_rate);
> > -	req->rate = ret_rate;
> > +		return 0;
> > +	}
> > -	return 0;
> > +	return divider_determine_rate(hw, req, NULL, divider->width,
> > +				      divider->div_flags);
> >   }
> >   static int sg2042_clk_divider_set_rate(struct clk_hw *hw,
> Tested-by: Chen Wang <unicorn_wang@...look.com>
> 
> Reviewed-by: Chen Wang <unicorn_wang@...look.com>
> 
> BTW: I have a question about the base-commit on which your patch series is
> based. Could you please tell me where I can find this base-commit? I'm
> asking this because I found that for the changes in [25/27] phy-j721e-wiz,
> if I'm based on the latest upstream master, I can't successfully apply this
> patch.
> 
> So, in my testing, I'm based on 6.19-rc1 and haven't picked [25/27].

My branch is based on linux-next-20260105. I verified that this series
also applies to linux-next-20260109. The TI patch depends on patch 9
from this series that's in linux-next:

https://lore.kernel.org/linux-phy/176656156358.817806.16966474957670370356.b4-ty@kernel.org/

Brian