Hi Chris,
On Fri, 7 Nov 2025 18:36:24 +0000
Chris Brandt <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi Hugo,
>
> Thank you for your review.
>
> On Fri, Nov 7, 2025 11:31 AM, Hugo Villeneuve wrote:
> > > + if (params->pl5_intin < PLL5_INTIN_MIN ||
> > > + params->pl5_intin > PLL5_INTIN_MAX)
> >
> > Your patch comments indicate that you removed +1 and -1 for kernel test
> > robot issue, but I do not understand why.
> >
> > pl5_intin is still defined as u8 (max 255), and therefore the result of
> > "params->pl5_intin > PLL5_INTIN_MAX" will always be false because
> > PLL5_INTIN_MAX is 320.
> >
> > It seems to me that pl5_intin type should be modified to account for its
> > maximum value (u16?), and this should probably goes into a separate patch
> > (with a Fixed: tag), that can be backported (if necessary).
>
> You are totally right!
> INTIN is a 12-bit register value.
> It's a bug.
>
> Good catch.
>
> I'll make that a separate patch so I can CC stable.
You can add the "Fixes" tag (not "Fixed" as I incorrectly stated):
Fixes: 1561380ee72f ("clk: renesas: rzg2l: Add FOUTPOSTDIV clk support")
This is the commit that added the pl5_intin field.
Original Kernel test robot message also suggested adding:
Reported-by: kernel test robot <[email protected]>
(See https://lore.kernel.org/oe-kbuild-all/[email protected]/)
Hugo.
> Chris
>
>
--
Hugo Villeneuve <[email protected]>
