[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20161129103453.GJ3110@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2016 11:34:53 +0100
From: Richard Cochran <richardcochran@...il.com>
To: Grygorii Strashko <grygorii.strashko@...com>
Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
Mugunthan V N <mugunthanvnm@...com>,
Sekhar Nori <nsekhar@...com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-omap@...r.kernel.org, Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org, Murali Karicheri <m-karicheri2@...com>,
Wingman Kwok <w-kwok2@...com>,
John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 12/13] net: ethernet: ti: cpts: calc mult and shift
from refclk freq
On Mon, Nov 28, 2016 at 05:03:36PM -0600, Grygorii Strashko wrote:
> +static void cpts_calc_mult_shift(struct cpts *cpts)
> +{
> + u64 frac, maxsec, ns;
> + u32 freq, mult, shift;
> +
> + freq = clk_get_rate(cpts->refclk);
> +
> + /* Calc the maximum number of seconds which we can run before
> + * wrapping around.
> + */
> + maxsec = cpts->cc.mask;
> + do_div(maxsec, freq);
> + if (maxsec > 600 && cpts->cc.mask > UINT_MAX)
> + maxsec = 600;
The reason for this test is not obvious. Why check cc.mask against
UINT_MAX? Please use the comment to explain it.
Thanks,
Richard
Powered by blists - more mailing lists