Re: [PATCH] cpufreq: arm_big_little: fix frequency check when bL switcher is active

From: Sudeep Holla
Date: Mon Oct 19 2015 - 04:44:22 EST




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@xxxxxxx>

--
Regards,
Sudeep
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/