From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1762481AbcINUXu (ORCPT ); Wed, 14 Sep 2016 16:23:50 -0400 Received: from bear.ext.ti.com ([198.47.19.11]:45728 "EHLO bear.ext.ti.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751621AbcINUXs (ORCPT ); Wed, 14 Sep 2016 16:23:48 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH 8/9] net: ethernet: ti: cpts: fix overflow check period To: Richard Cochran References: <20160914130231.3035-1-grygorii.strashko@ti.com> <20160914130231.3035-9-grygorii.strashko@ti.com> <20160914142503.GF28592@localhost.localdomain> <20160914200845.GB12195@netboy> CC: "David S. Miller" , , Mugunthan V N , Sekhar Nori , , , WingMan Kwok From: Grygorii Strashko Message-ID: <33f6f81b-ce41-4eba-c62d-93cdb06daa8f@ti.com> Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2016 23:23:43 +0300 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20160914200845.GB12195@netboy> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 09/14/2016 11:08 PM, Richard Cochran wrote: > On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 11:03:18PM +0300, Grygorii Strashko wrote: >> On 09/14/2016 05:25 PM, Richard Cochran wrote: >>> On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 04:02:30PM +0300, Grygorii Strashko wrote: >>>> @@ -427,9 +427,6 @@ static void cpts_calc_mult_shift(struct cpts *cpts) >>>> u64 ns; >>>> u64 frac; >>>> >>>> - if (cpts->cc_mult || cpts->cc.shift) >>>> - return; >>>> - >>>> freq = clk_get_rate(cpts->refclk); >>>> >>>> /* Calc the maximum number of seconds which we can run before >>> >>> This hunk has nothing to do with $subject. >> >> Sry, but I did not get your comment here :( >> I'd happy to update patch according to your request, but could you provide more info here, pls? > > You added that code in patch #7. Then you moved it in patch #8. You > could have made the code correct in patch #7 to begin with. > Do you mean - if (cpts->cc_mult || cpts->cc.shift) - return; ?? if yes then those changes are correct as from patch#7 point of view, as from patch#8 because they are separate standalone changes. In patch patch#7 it reasonable to ball out earlier, while in patch#8 it required to move forward a bit as I need to know maxsec. Sry, that I'm bothering you with stupid questions. -- regards, -grygorii