On 12/10/2013 11:51 PM, Sascha Hauer wrote: > On Mon, Dec 09, 2013 at 06:00:12PM -0800, Paul Walmsley wrote: >> Treat both negative and zero return values from clk_round_rate() as >> errors. This is needed since subsequent patches will convert >> clk_round_rate()'s return value to be an unsigned type, rather than a >> signed type, since some clock sources can generate rates higher than >> (2^31)-1 Hz. >> >> Eventually, when calling clk_round_rate(), only a return value of zero >> will be considered a error. All other values will be considered valid >> rates. The comparison against values less than 0 is kept to preserve >> the correct behavior in the meantime. > Shouldn't it be an error when the result is not within sensible limits > instead? What do you do with a rate of 1Hz?
It's up to the caller of clk_round_rate() to decide what doesn't make sense for its use-case. The caller can certainly react to non-zero rates as it likes. The 0 return code (and the previous negative return values that were used previously) are just intended for the clock framework to signal explicit errors encountered during clk_round_rate()'s execution. - Paul
