On 2021/07/27 12:51, Sean Anderson wrote:
Some clock functions return ulong but still have "negative" errors. To deal with this, cast the relevant arguments to long.
Fixes: 609bd60b94 ("clk: k210: Rewrite to remove CCF") Reported-by: Coverity Scan scan-admin@coverity.com Signed-off-by: Sean Anderson seanga2@gmail.com
drivers/clk/clk_kendryte.c | 6 +++--- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/clk/clk_kendryte.c b/drivers/clk/clk_kendryte.c index 3148756968..37bd624eca 100644 --- a/drivers/clk/clk_kendryte.c +++ b/drivers/clk/clk_kendryte.c @@ -439,7 +439,7 @@ static const struct k210_clk_params k210_clks[] = { #ifdef CONFIG_CLK_K210_SET_RATE static int k210_pll_enable(struct k210_clk_priv *priv, int id); static int k210_pll_disable(struct k210_clk_priv *priv, int id); -static ulong k210_pll_get_rate(struct k210_clk_priv *priv, int id, ulong rate_in); +static ulong k210_pll_get_rate(struct k210_clk_priv *priv, int id, long rate_in);
/*
- The PLL included with the Kendryte K210 appears to be a True Circuits, Inc.
@@ -841,7 +841,7 @@ TEST_STATIC int k210_pll_calc_config(u32 rate, u32 rate_in, }
static ulong k210_pll_set_rate(struct k210_clk_priv *priv, int id, ulong rate,
Shouldn't this one return a long, in case of error ? It seems that the commit messages hints at such a change, but you are changing the argument type instead. A little confusing. What am I missing ?
ulong rate_in)
long rate_in){ int err; const struct k210_pll_params *pll = &k210_plls[id]; @@ -890,7 +890,7 @@ static ulong k210_pll_set_rate(struct k210_clk_priv *priv, int id, ulong rate, #endif /* CONFIG_CLK_K210_SET_RATE */
static ulong k210_pll_get_rate(struct k210_clk_priv *priv, int id,
Same here ?
ulong rate_in)
long rate_in)
I would assume that these functions are called if the rate_in argument is correct, so I do not really understand why the argument type needs to be changed...
{ u64 r, f, od; u32 reg = readl(priv->base + k210_plls[id].off);