RE: [PATCH] clk: zynqmp: pll: Remove some dead code

[Rajan Vaja]

Hi Chris,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Christophe JAILLET <christophe.jaillet@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: 03 May 2021 11:20 AM
> To: Rajan Vaja <RAJANV@xxxxxxxxxx>; mturquette@xxxxxxxxxxxx;
> sboyd@xxxxxxxxxx; Michal Simek <michals@xxxxxxxxxx>;
> quanyang.wang@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; Jolly Shah <JOLLYS@xxxxxxxxxx>; Tejas Patel
> <tejasp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Shubhrajyoti Datta <shubhraj@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: linux-clk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-arm-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-
> kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; kernel-janitors@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] clk: zynqmp: pll: Remove some dead code
> 
> 
> Le 03/05/2021 à 06:56, Rajan Vaja a écrit :
> > Hi,
> >
> > Thanks for the patch.
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Christophe JAILLET <christophe.jaillet@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >> Sent: 01 May 2021 04:55 PM
> >> To: mturquette@xxxxxxxxxxxx; sboyd@xxxxxxxxxx; Michal Simek
> >> <michals@xxxxxxxxxx>; quanyang.wang@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; Rajan Vaja
> >> <RAJANV@xxxxxxxxxx>; Jolly Shah <JOLLYS@xxxxxxxxxx>; Tejas Patel
> >> <tejasp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Shubhrajyoti Datta <shubhraj@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >> Cc: linux-clk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-arm-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-
> >> kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; kernel-janitors@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Christophe JAILLET
> >> <christophe.jaillet@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >> Subject: [PATCH] clk: zynqmp: pll: Remove some dead code
> >>
> >> 'clk_hw_set_rate_range()' does not return any error code and 'ret' is
> >> known to be 0 at this point, so this message can never be displayed.
> >>
> >> Remove it.
> >>
> >> Fixes: 3fde0e16d016 ("drivers: clk: Add ZynqMP clock driver")
> >> Signed-off-by: Christophe JAILLET <christophe.jaillet@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >> ---
> >> HOWEVER, the message is about 'clk_set_rate_range()', not
> >> 'clk_hw_set_rate_range()'. So the message is maybe correct and the
> >> 'xxx_rate_range()' function incorrect.
> >> ---
> >>   drivers/clk/zynqmp/pll.c | 2 --
> >>   1 file changed, 2 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/drivers/clk/zynqmp/pll.c b/drivers/clk/zynqmp/pll.c
> >> index abe6afbf3407..af11e9400058 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/clk/zynqmp/pll.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/clk/zynqmp/pll.c
> >> @@ -331,8 +331,6 @@ struct clk_hw *zynqmp_clk_register_pll(const char
> *name,
> >> u32 clk_id,
> >>   	}
> >>
> >>   	clk_hw_set_rate_range(hw, PS_PLL_VCO_MIN, PS_PLL_VCO_MAX);
> >> -	if (ret < 0)
> >> -		pr_err("%s:ERROR clk_set_rate_range failed %d\n", name, ret);
> > [Rajan] Instead of removing, can we get return value of clk_hw_set_rate_range()
> and
> > print in case of an error.
> 
> Hi,
> 
> if it was possible, it is what I would have proposed because it looks
> 'logical'.
> 
> However, 'clk_hw_set_rate_range()' returns void.
> Hence my comment about 'clk_hw_set_rate_range' being the correct
> function to call or not. (i.e. is the comment right and
> 'clk_hw_set_rate_range' wrong?)
[Rajan] Thanks for the clarification. Then, it looks fine.

> 
> CJ
> 
> 
> 
> >>   	return hw;
> >>   }
> >> --
> >> 2.30.2