Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH] cpufreq: arm_big_little: fix frequency check when bL switcher is active | From | Sudeep Holla <> | Date | Mon, 19 Oct 2015 09:44:15 +0100 |
| |
On 19/10/15 09:33, Jon Medhurst (Tixy) wrote: > On Wed, 2015-10-14 at 09:48 +0100, Sudeep Holla wrote: >>
[...]
>> >> OK, I understand what you mean now. I don't have a strong opinion, but >> here is the reason why I prefer the approach I said earlier: >> clk_set_rate doesn't return error if the h/w or f/w return error which >> is usually the last step. So calling clk_get_rate when clk_set_rate >> return error quite early makes no sense to me. > > It doesn't to me either, but my suggested code doesn't do that, it only > calls clk_get_rate if the is _no_ error from clk_set_rate, the pseudo > code again... > > ret = clk_set_rate() > if(!ret) /* if no error from clk_set_rate */ > if(clk_get_rate()!=correct) /* but some additional checks fail */ > ret = -EIO; /* then indicate an error anyway */ > > !ret is ret==0 is 'no error' as the comment says. So the clock framework > thinks the rate was set OK and we then use clk_get_rate to see if those > unreported h/w or f/w errors mean that it actually wasn't set OK. >
Ah sorry, my mistake. May be I got carried away by that extra if(!ret). I am fine with the patch.
Acked-by: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>
-- Regards, Sudeep
| |