[PATCH RESEND] ufs: ti-j721e: Correct error detection

[Anshul Dalal]

Hi Andrew,

On Mon Oct 6, 2025 at 9:01 PM IST, Andrew Goodbody wrote:
> In ti_j721e_ufs_probe there is a call to clk_get_rate but the code after
> that attempts to detect an error from that call incorrectly uses
> IS_ERR_VALUE.  Instead the test should just be for regular error codes.
> The call returns an unsigned long so that needs to be cast to a signed type
> first of all.
>
> This issue was found by Smatch.
>
> Signed-off-by: Andrew Goodbody <andrew.goodbody at linaro.org>
> ---
>  drivers/ufs/ti-j721e-ufs.c | 6 +++---
>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/ufs/ti-j721e-ufs.c b/drivers/ufs/ti-j721e-ufs.c
> index c5c08610ffd0422c9cf9d8e85b0396e6102cb29a..d50918912b2168db4e00c3cac0a9c54872a76602 100644
> --- a/drivers/ufs/ti-j721e-ufs.c
> +++ b/drivers/ufs/ti-j721e-ufs.c
> @@ -17,7 +17,7 @@
>  static int ti_j721e_ufs_probe(struct udevice *dev)
>  {
>  	void __iomem *base;
> -	unsigned int clock;
> +	unsigned long clock;
>  	struct clk clk;
>  	u32 reg = 0;
>  	int ret;
> @@ -29,9 +29,9 @@ static int ti_j721e_ufs_probe(struct udevice *dev)
>  	}
>  
>  	clock = clk_get_rate(&clk);
> -	if (IS_ERR_VALUE(clock)) {
> +	if ((long)clock < 0) {

Should we be checking for clock == 0 as well? Because clk_get_rate does
return 0 on invalid clock.

Regards,
Anshul

>  		dev_err(dev, "failed to get rate\n");
> -		return ret;
> +		return clock;
>  	}
>  
>  	base = dev_remap_addr_index(dev, 0);
>
> ---
> base-commit: 7807ed921314cd7af83fd88162d0b8c6fb20a9ca
> change-id: 20250813-ufs_ti-dd699eb6524e
>
> Best regards,