[U-Boot] Question about compile warnings of exynos clock

[Simon Glass]

Hi,

On 12 January 2015 at 18:24, Joonyoung Shim <jy0922.shim at samsung.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I found below compile warnings,
>
>   CC      arch/arm/cpu/armv7/exynos/clock.o
> arch/arm/cpu/armv7/exynos/clock.c: In function ‘clock_get_periph_rate’:
> arch/arm/cpu/armv7/exynos/clock.c:265:47: warning: array subscript is above array bounds [-Warray-bounds]
>   struct clk_bit_info *bit_info = &clk_bit_info[peripheral];
>                                                ^
> arch/arm/cpu/armv7/exynos/clock.c:265:47: warning: array subscript is above array bounds [-Warray-bounds]
>
> ...
>> static unsigned long exynos5_get_periph_rate(int peripheral)
>> {
>>         struct clk_bit_info *bit_info = &clk_bit_info[peripheral];
>>
>
> This can access out of bounds of clk_bit_info[] array from
> exynos5_get_periph_rate(). The peripheral value comes from
> enum periph_id but it gets out of count clk_bit_info[] array.
>
> So, i don't think exynos5_get_periph_rate is working correctly.
> Currently, exynos5_get_periph_rate is used by clock_get_periph_rate only
> from get_pwm_clk.
>
> Is it ongoing to work for generic api to get the clk freq? If not,
> let's remove exynos5_get_periph_rate and clock_get_periph_rate.

That's going in the wrong direction - these functions make the code
much easier to follow and refactor. We should remove get_pwm_clk(),
get_mmc_clk() etc. and use generic functions instead.

Regards,
Simon