On Wed, Nov 01, 2017 at 07:08:52PM +, Manasi Navare wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 01, 2017 at 11:44:58AM -0700, Rodrigo Vivi wrote:
> > It is unlikely we are getting the -1 here.
> > But if we propagate that pll_id -1 to the rest of the code
> > we might have funny calculations on link_clock and who
>
On Wed, Nov 01, 2017 at 12:13:42PM -0700, Rodrigo Vivi wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 01, 2017 at 06:56:55PM +, Ville Syrjälä wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 01, 2017 at 11:44:58AM -0700, Rodrigo Vivi wrote:
> > > It is unlikely we are getting the -1 here.
> > > But if we propagate that pll_id -1 to the rest of
On Wed, Nov 01, 2017 at 06:56:55PM +, Ville Syrjälä wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 01, 2017 at 11:44:58AM -0700, Rodrigo Vivi wrote:
> > It is unlikely we are getting the -1 here.
> > But if we propagate that pll_id -1 to the rest of the code
> > we might have funny calculations on link_clock and who
>
On Wed, Nov 01, 2017 at 11:44:58AM -0700, Rodrigo Vivi wrote:
> It is unlikely we are getting the -1 here.
> But if we propagate that pll_id -1 to the rest of the code
> we might have funny calculations on link_clock and who
> knows what registers we end up accessing.
>
> Better to protect the
On Wed, Nov 01, 2017 at 11:44:58AM -0700, Rodrigo Vivi wrote:
> It is unlikely we are getting the -1 here.
> But if we propagate that pll_id -1 to the rest of the code
> we might have funny calculations on link_clock and who
> knows what registers we end up accessing.
>
> Better to protect the
It is unlikely we are getting the -1 here.
But if we propagate that pll_id -1 to the rest of the code
we might have funny calculations on link_clock and who
knows what registers we end up accessing.
Better to protect the code.
Also better with errno number instead of generic -1.
Cc: Manasi
