| Message ID | 20250417065354.311617-10-sakari.ailus@linux.intel.com |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
| Series | CCS PLL fixes and improvements | expand |
Hi Sakari, Thank you for the patch. On Thu, Apr 17, 2025 at 09:53:52AM +0300, Sakari Ailus wrote: > Check that the VT PLL dividers are actually found, don't trust they always > are even though they should be. > > Signed-off-by: Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@linux.intel.com> > --- > drivers/media/i2c/ccs-pll.c | 12 +++++++++--- > 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/media/i2c/ccs-pll.c b/drivers/media/i2c/ccs-pll.c > index 3f8153fb4af0..fc6f8aff5fd8 100644 > --- a/drivers/media/i2c/ccs-pll.c > +++ b/drivers/media/i2c/ccs-pll.c > @@ -449,7 +449,7 @@ static int ccs_pll_calculate_vt_tree(struct device *dev, > return -EINVAL; > } > > -static void > +static int > ccs_pll_calculate_vt(struct device *dev, const struct ccs_pll_limits *lim, > const struct ccs_pll_branch_limits_bk *op_lim_bk, > struct ccs_pll *pll, struct ccs_pll_branch_fr *pll_fr, > @@ -572,6 +572,8 @@ ccs_pll_calculate_vt(struct device *dev, const struct ccs_pll_limits *lim, > if (best_pix_div < SHRT_MAX >> 1) > break; > } > + if (best_pix_div == SHRT_MAX >> 1) > + return -EINVAL; I think I would have written if (vt_div > max_vt_div) return -EINVAL; to match the for loop condition, this seems a bit more readable to me. The result should be the same though, so either way, Reviewed-by: Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@ideasonboard.com> > > pll->vt_bk.sys_clk_div = DIV_ROUND_UP(vt_div, best_pix_div); > pll->vt_bk.pix_clk_div = best_pix_div; > @@ -584,6 +586,8 @@ ccs_pll_calculate_vt(struct device *dev, const struct ccs_pll_limits *lim, > out_calc_pixel_rate: > pll->pixel_rate_pixel_array = > pll->vt_bk.pix_clk_freq_hz * pll->vt_lanes; > + > + return 0; > } > > /* > @@ -863,8 +867,10 @@ int ccs_pll_calculate(struct device *dev, const struct ccs_pll_limits *lim, > if (pll->flags & CCS_PLL_FLAG_DUAL_PLL) > break; > > - ccs_pll_calculate_vt(dev, lim, op_lim_bk, pll, op_pll_fr, > - op_pll_bk, cphy, phy_const); > + rval = ccs_pll_calculate_vt(dev, lim, op_lim_bk, pll, op_pll_fr, > + op_pll_bk, cphy, phy_const); > + if (rval) > + continue; > > rval = check_bk_bounds(dev, lim, pll, PLL_VT); > if (rval)
diff --git a/drivers/media/i2c/ccs-pll.c b/drivers/media/i2c/ccs-pll.c index 3f8153fb4af0..fc6f8aff5fd8 100644 --- a/drivers/media/i2c/ccs-pll.c +++ b/drivers/media/i2c/ccs-pll.c @@ -449,7 +449,7 @@ static int ccs_pll_calculate_vt_tree(struct device *dev, return -EINVAL; } -static void +static int ccs_pll_calculate_vt(struct device *dev, const struct ccs_pll_limits *lim, const struct ccs_pll_branch_limits_bk *op_lim_bk, struct ccs_pll *pll, struct ccs_pll_branch_fr *pll_fr, @@ -572,6 +572,8 @@ ccs_pll_calculate_vt(struct device *dev, const struct ccs_pll_limits *lim, if (best_pix_div < SHRT_MAX >> 1) break; } + if (best_pix_div == SHRT_MAX >> 1) + return -EINVAL; pll->vt_bk.sys_clk_div = DIV_ROUND_UP(vt_div, best_pix_div); pll->vt_bk.pix_clk_div = best_pix_div; @@ -584,6 +586,8 @@ ccs_pll_calculate_vt(struct device *dev, const struct ccs_pll_limits *lim, out_calc_pixel_rate: pll->pixel_rate_pixel_array = pll->vt_bk.pix_clk_freq_hz * pll->vt_lanes; + + return 0; } /* @@ -863,8 +867,10 @@ int ccs_pll_calculate(struct device *dev, const struct ccs_pll_limits *lim, if (pll->flags & CCS_PLL_FLAG_DUAL_PLL) break; - ccs_pll_calculate_vt(dev, lim, op_lim_bk, pll, op_pll_fr, - op_pll_bk, cphy, phy_const); + rval = ccs_pll_calculate_vt(dev, lim, op_lim_bk, pll, op_pll_fr, + op_pll_bk, cphy, phy_const); + if (rval) + continue; rval = check_bk_bounds(dev, lim, pll, PLL_VT); if (rval)
Check that the VT PLL dividers are actually found, don't trust they always are even though they should be. Signed-off-by: Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@linux.intel.com> --- drivers/media/i2c/ccs-pll.c | 12 +++++++++--- 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)