Messages in this thread | ![/](/images/icornerl.gif) | | From | Stephen Boyd <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] clk: fix clk_mux_val_to_index() error value | Date | Tue, 04 Dec 2018 10:43:19 -0800 |
| |
Quoting Jerome Brunet (2018-12-04 08:34:03) > clk_mux_val_to_index() is meant to be used by .get_parent(), which > returns a u8, so when the value provided does not map to any valid index, > it is not a good idea to return a negative error value. > > Instead, return num_parents which we know is an invalid index and let > CCF deal with it. > > Fixes: 77deb66d262f ("clk: mux: add helper function for index/value translation") > Signed-off-by: Jerome Brunet <jbrunet@baylibre.com> > ---
Thanks!
> diff --git a/include/linux/clk-provider.h b/include/linux/clk-provider.h > index 60c51871b04b..fc20886ef069 100644 > --- a/include/linux/clk-provider.h > +++ b/include/linux/clk-provider.h > @@ -550,8 +550,8 @@ struct clk_hw *clk_hw_register_mux_table(struct device *dev, const char *name, > void __iomem *reg, u8 shift, u32 mask, > u8 clk_mux_flags, u32 *table, spinlock_t *lock); > > -int clk_mux_val_to_index(struct clk_hw *hw, u32 *table, unsigned int flags, > - unsigned int val); > +u8 clk_mux_val_to_index(struct clk_hw *hw, u32 *table, unsigned int flags,
I wonder if we should just make this unsigned int? Does it hurt at all to have it be a wider type even though it doesn't match the CCF decision to make this a u8 for the parent index number space?
| ![\](/images/icornerr.gif) |