Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 9 Mar 2023 12:04:15 +0200 | From | Laurent Pinchart <> | Subject | Re: drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/fsl-ldb.c:101: possible loss of information. |
| |
Hi David,
On Thu, Mar 09, 2023 at 09:42:54AM +0000, David Binderman wrote: > Hello there Laurent, > > > Would you be able to send a patch to fix this ? > > Sadly, no. My success rate with kernel patches is low enough to make > it not worth trying.
I'm sorry to hear that. If you were willing to try again, I can offer help with tooling and review to get your patch merged.
> From: Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@ideasonboard.com> > Sent: 09 March 2023 09:26 > To: David Binderman <dcb314@hotmail.com> > Cc: andrzej.hajda@intel.com <andrzej.hajda@intel.com>; neil.armstrong@linaro.org <neil.armstrong@linaro.org>; rfoss@kernel.org <rfoss@kernel.org>; jonas@kwiboo.se <jonas@kwiboo.se>; jernej.skrabec@gmail.com <jernej.skrabec@gmail.com>; airlied@gmail.com <airlied@gmail.com>; daniel@ffwll.ch <daniel@ffwll.ch>; dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org <dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org>; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org> > Subject: Re: drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/fsl-ldb.c:101: possible loss of information. > > Hi David, > > On Thu, Mar 09, 2023 at 07:59:34AM +0000, David Binderman wrote: > > Hello there Laurent, > > > > > We could, but I don't think it will make any difference in practice as > > > the maximum pixel clock frequency supported by the SoC is 80MHz (per > > > LVDS channel). That would result in a 560MHz frequency returned by this > > > function, well below the 31 bits limit. > > > > Thanks for your explanation. I have a couple of suggestions for possible improvements: > > > > 1. Your explanatory text in a comment nearby. This helps all readers of the code. > > > > 2. Might the frequency go up to 300 MHz anytime soon ? The code will stop working then. > > In this case, I would suggest to put in a run time sanity check to make sure no 31 bit overflow. > > As it's a hardware limit of the SoC, I wouldn't expect so. > > This being said, I think adding a UL suffix to the constants would be > better than a comment as it will please static checkers and serve as > documentation to humans. Would you be able to send a patch to fix this ? > > > Just a couple of ideas for the code. > > Thanks for taking the time to share those.
-- Regards,
Laurent Pinchart
| |