clk: vt8500: several forever loops

This does a bunch of looping like this:

	for (div2 = 7; div2 >= 0; div2--)

But unsigned values are always greater than or equal to zero so it just loops and loops. Really "mul", "div1" and "div2" should all be declared as int for cleanliness sake.

Signed-off-by Dan Carpenter <[email protected]>

---
Static checker stuff.

drivers/clk/clk-vt8500.c +3 -3

index 82306f5..8d5b57c 100644
@@ -363,7 +363,7 @@ static void vt8500_find_pll_bits(unsigned long rate, unsigned long parent_rate,
 static void wm8650_find_pll_bits(unsigned long rate, unsigned long parent_rate,
 				u32 *multiplier, u32 *divisor1, u32 *divisor2)
 {
-	u32 mul, div1, div2;
+	int mul, div1, div2;
 	u32 best_mul, best_div1, best_div2;
 	unsigned long tclk, rate_err, best_err;
 

@@ -431,7 +431,7 @@ static u32 wm8750_get_filter(u32 parent_rate, u32 divisor1)
 static void wm8750_find_pll_bits(unsigned long rate, unsigned long parent_rate,
 				u32 *filter, u32 *multiplier, u32 *divisor1, u32 *divisor2)
 {
-	u32 mul, div1, div2;
+	int mul, div1, div2;
 	u32 best_mul, best_div1, best_div2;
 	unsigned long tclk, rate_err, best_err;
 

@@ -475,7 +475,7 @@ static void wm8750_find_pll_bits(unsigned long rate, unsigned long parent_rate,
 static void wm8850_find_pll_bits(unsigned long rate, unsigned long parent_rate,
 				u32 *multiplier, u32 *divisor1, u32 *divisor2)
 {
-	u32 mul, div1, div2;
+	int mul, div1, div2;
 	u32 best_mul, best_div1, best_div2;
 	unsigned long tclk, rate_err, best_err;
 

This patch is still needed in linux-next. It was Acked by Tony Prisk in a private email.

Acked-by Tony Prisk <[email protected]>

regards,
dan carpenter

Quoted 8 lines · Dan Carpenter

This does a bunch of looping like this:

      for (div2 = 7; div2 >= 0; div2--)

But unsigned values are always greater than or equal to zero so it just loops and loops. Really "mul", "div1" and "div2" should all be declared as int for cleanliness sake.

Quoted 27 lines

Signed-off-by Dan Carpenter <[email protected]>

---
Static checker stuff.

drivers/clk/clk-vt8500.c +2 -2

index 82306f5..8d5b57c 100644
@@ -363,7 +363,7 @@ static void vt8500_find_pll_bits(unsigned long rate, unsigned long parent_rate,
 static void wm8650_find_pll_bits(unsigned long rate, unsigned long parent_rate,
                              u32 *multiplier, u32 *divisor1, u32 *divisor2)
 {
-     u32 mul, div1, div2;
+     int mul, div1, div2;
      u32 best_mul, best_div1, best_div2;
      unsigned long tclk, rate_err, best_err;
 

@@ -431,7 +431,7 @@ static u32 wm8750_get_filter(u32 parent_rate, u32 divisor1)
 static void wm8750_find_pll_bits(unsigned long rate, unsigned long parent_rate,
                              u32 *filter, u32 *multiplier, u32 *divisor1, u32 *divisor2)
 {
-     u32 mul, div1, div2;
+     int mul, div1, div2;
      u32 best_mul, best_div1, best_div2;
      unsigned long tclk, rate_err, best_err;
 

drivers/clk/clk-vt8500.c static void wm8750_find_pll_bits(unsigned long rate, unsigned long parent_rate, · line 481

Quoted 8 lines

drivers/clk/clk-vt8500.c +1 -1

@@ -475,7 +475,7 @@ static void wm8750_find_pll_bits(unsigned long rate, unsigned long parent_rate,
 static void wm8850_find_pll_bits(unsigned long rate, unsigned long parent_rate,
                              u32 *multiplier, u32 *divisor1, u32 *divisor2)
 {
-     u32 mul, div1, div2;
+     int mul, div1, div2;
      u32 best_mul, best_div1, best_div2;
      unsigned long tclk, rate_err, best_err;
 

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

Quoted 17 lines · Dan Carpenter

This patch is still needed in linux-next. It was Acked by Tony Prisk in a private email.

Acked-by Tony Prisk <[email protected]>

regards,
dan carpenter

Quoted 8 lines · Dan Carpenter

This does a bunch of looping like this:

      for (div2 = 7; div2 >= 0; div2--)

But unsigned values are always greater than or equal to zero so it just loops and loops. Really "mul", "div1" and "div2" should all be declared as int for cleanliness sake.

Apologies if this is a silly question from someone who is utterly uninformed, but are values = 0 even legal for divisors? It seems that, at least in some cases, 'div - 1' is or'ed into a register value (WM8850_BITS_TO_VAL), and I don't think you are expecting negative values there.
So perhaps instead, change the test to '> 0' ??