Hi Hugo, On Wed, Nov 19, 2025 1:23 PM, Hugo Villeneuve wrote: > > + params->pl5_fracin = div_u64((u64) > > + ((foutvco_rate * > > params->pl5_refdiv) % > > + (EXTAL_FREQ_IN_MEGA_HZ * > > MEGA)) << 24, > > + EXTAL_FREQ_IN_MEGA_HZ * > > MEGA); > > > > > > Also: > > foutvco_rate (max) = 3000000000 (3GHz) > > pl5_refdiv (max) = 2 > > > > so the result of (foutvco_rate * params->pl5_refdiv) could become > > 6GHz, which is greater than unsigned long on 32-bit platform and overflow? > > I confirm that when testing with "COMPILE_TEST" as Geert suggested on a > 32-bit platform, the results are not > valid for this combination (but they are valid on 64-bit platforms). > > I think that the kernel robot could potentially issue a build warning for > 32-bit platforms (if they also build with > COMPILE_TEST enabled, which I'm not sure about). Maybe Geert could comment on > this?
I've got no comment here. I can't image when someone would ever want to compile this code for a 32-bit system. So I'll leave it as it is now unless Geert wants me to change it to something else. Chris
