Mathieu Poirier <[email protected]> writes:

> On 1 December 2015 at 15:55, Stefan Wahren <[email protected]> wrote:
>> It's possible that the pwm clock become an orphan. So better
>> check the result of clk_get_rate in order to prevent a division
>> by zero.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Stefan Wahren <[email protected]>
>> ---
>>  drivers/pwm/pwm-bcm2835.c |   10 +++++++++-
>>  1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/pwm/pwm-bcm2835.c b/drivers/pwm/pwm-bcm2835.c
>> index 174cca9..31a6992 100644
>> --- a/drivers/pwm/pwm-bcm2835.c
>> +++ b/drivers/pwm/pwm-bcm2835.c
>> @@ -65,7 +65,15 @@ static int bcm2835_pwm_config(struct pwm_chip *chip, 
>> struct pwm_device *pwm,
>>                               int duty_ns, int period_ns)
>>  {
>>         struct bcm2835_pwm *pc = to_bcm2835_pwm(chip);
>> -       unsigned long scaler = NSEC_PER_SEC / clk_get_rate(pc->clk);
>> +       unsigned long rate = clk_get_rate(pc->clk);
>> +       unsigned long scaler;
>> +
>> +       if (!rate) {
>> +               dev_err(pc->dev, "failed to get clock rate\n");
>> +               return -EINVAL;
>> +       }
>> +
>> +       scaler = NSEC_PER_SEC / rate;
>
> Stefan,
>
> Please merge this code into patch 1/3.  That way it is done the right
> way the first time around.

They're separate changes and are good as separate patches.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Reply via email to