Re: [PATCH] clk: zynqmp: pll: Remove some dead code

[Christophe JAILLET]

Le 03/05/2021 à 06:56, Rajan Vaja a écrit :
> Hi,
>
> Thanks for the patch.
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Christophe JAILLET <christophe.jaillet@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > Sent: 01 May 2021 04:55 PM
> > To: mturquette@xxxxxxxxxxxx; sboyd@xxxxxxxxxx; Michal Simek
> > <michals@xxxxxxxxxx>; quanyang.wang@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; Rajan Vaja
> > <RAJANV@xxxxxxxxxx>; Jolly Shah <JOLLYS@xxxxxxxxxx>; Tejas Patel
> > <tejasp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Shubhrajyoti Datta <shubhraj@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > Cc: linux-clk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-arm-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-
> > kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; kernel-janitors@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Christophe JAILLET
> > <christophe.jaillet@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > Subject: [PATCH] clk: zynqmp: pll: Remove some dead code
> >
> > 'clk_hw_set_rate_range()' does not return any error code and 'ret' is
> > known to be 0 at this point, so this message can never be displayed.
> >
> > Remove it.
> >
> > Fixes: 3fde0e16d016 ("drivers: clk: Add ZynqMP clock driver")
> > Signed-off-by: Christophe JAILLET <christophe.jaillet@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > HOWEVER, the message is about 'clk_set_rate_range()', not
> > 'clk_hw_set_rate_range()'. So the message is maybe correct and the
> > 'xxx_rate_range()' function incorrect.
> > ---
> >   drivers/clk/zynqmp/pll.c | 2 --
> >   1 file changed, 2 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/clk/zynqmp/pll.c b/drivers/clk/zynqmp/pll.c
> > index abe6afbf3407..af11e9400058 100644
> > --- a/drivers/clk/zynqmp/pll.c
> > +++ b/drivers/clk/zynqmp/pll.c
> > @@ -331,8 +331,6 @@ struct clk_hw *zynqmp_clk_register_pll(const char *name,
> > u32 clk_id,
> >   	}
> >
> >   	clk_hw_set_rate_range(hw, PS_PLL_VCO_MIN, PS_PLL_VCO_MAX);
> > -	if (ret < 0)
> > -		pr_err("%s:ERROR clk_set_rate_range failed %d\n", name, ret);
> [Rajan] Instead of removing, can we get return value of clk_hw_set_rate_range() and
> print in case of an error.

Hi,

if it was possible, it is what I would have proposed because it looks 
'logical'.

However, 'clk_hw_set_rate_range()' returns void.
Hence my comment about 'clk_hw_set_rate_range' being the correct 
function to call or not. (i.e. is the comment right and 
'clk_hw_set_rate_range' wrong?)

CJ



> >   	return hw;
> >   }
> > --
> > 2.30.2