Subject: [PATCH 2/4] pwm: omap-dmtimer: add sanity checking for load and match values

From: [email-masked] (Neil Armstrong)
Date: Wed, 3 Feb 2016 11:24:23 +0100

On 02/01/2016 07:35 PM, David Rivshin (Allworx) wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Jan 2016 23:26:52 -0500
> "David Rivshin (Allworx)" <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
>> From: David Rivshin <[email-masked]>
>>
>> Add sanity checking to ensure that we do not program load or match
>> values that are out of range if a user requests period or duty_cycle
>> values which are not achievable. The match value cannot be less than
>> the load value (but can be equal), and neither can be 0xffffffff.
>> This means that there must be at least one fclk cycle between load
>> and match, and another between match and overflow.
>>
>> Fixes: 6604c6556db9 ("pwm: Add PWM driver for OMAP using dual-mode
>> timers") Signed-off-by: David Rivshin <[email-masked]>
>> ---
>  [...]
>> @@ -149,6 +149,24 @@ static int pwm_omap_dmtimer_config(struct pwm_chip *chip, 
>> period_cycles = pwm_omap_dmtimer_get_clock_cycles(clk_rate, period_ns); 
>> duty_cycles = pwm_omap_dmtimer_get_clock_cycles(clk_rate, duty_ns); 
>>
>> +	if (period_cycles < 2) {
>> +		dev_info(chip->dev,
>> +			"period %dns is too short for clock rate %luHz\n",
>> +			period_ns, clk_rate);
>> +		goto err_einval;
>> +	}
>  [...]
> 
> I had some second thoughts on this over the weekend:
> 1) Perhaps the return should be -ERANGE instead of -EINVAL for this case?
> 2) Is dev_info() too severe for this? Perhaps dev_dbg() would be better?
> Any preferences?
> 
The current management is OK for me.

Acked-by: Neil Armstrong <[email-masked]>

Thanks !