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

[Simon Glass]

Hi,

On 12 January 2015 at 18:51, Joonyoung Shim <jy0922.shim at samsung.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 01/13/2015 11:47 AM, Simon Glass wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On 12 January 2015 at 18:36, Joonyoung Shim <jy0922.shim at samsung.com> wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> On 01/13/2015 11:27 AM, Simon Glass wrote:
>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I know, but current codes are wrong, so first i want to correct it even
>>> if it is old way because it's really easy. And then we can go to generic
>>> functions.
>>
>> So not remove the generic functions?
>>
>> Is it this line which is broken?
>>
>> clock_get_periph_rate(PERIPH_ID_PWM0);
>>
>> If so, it seems like everything else uses its own function. It should
>> all move easily to the generic function I think.
>>
>
> The basic problem is the generic function is wrong.

Oh dear, does it not work for anything?

Regards,
Simon