Hi Geert and Biju
> You are not required to fix checkpatch warnings or errors if you have a good reason to do so. In this case, I see no reason for
> the parentheses (it is not a very complex expression), so please drop them.
OK. Good to know!
I was working on another project, but starting next week I'm going to back to working on fixing up this driver.
As Biju mentioned, the PLL settings have different restrictions depending on if MIPI or DPI is being used.
So, somehow that all has to be sorted out (the correct way).
As usual, the chip designers make a simple table in the hardware manual that becomes difficult to satisfy in software.
Chris
-----Original Message-----
From: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2025 3:39 AM
To: Biju Das <biju.das.jz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Chris Brandt <Chris.Brandt@xxxxxxxxxxx>; Michael Turquette <mturquette@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; Stephen Boyd <sboyd@xxxxxxxxxx>; Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Maxime Ripard <mripard@xxxxxxxxxx>; Thomas Zimmermann <tzimmermann@xxxxxxx>; David Airlie <airlied@xxxxxxxxx>; Simona Vetter <simona@xxxxxxxx>; Hien Huynh <hien.huynh.px@xxxxxxxxxxx>; Nghia Vo <nghia.vo.zn@xxxxxxxxxxx>; Hugo Villeneuve <hugo@xxxxxxxxxxx>; linux-renesas-soc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-clk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] clk: renesas: rzg2l: Remove DSI clock rate restrictions
Hi Biju,
On Thu, 14 Aug 2025 at 08:08, Biju Das <biju.das.jz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > From: Chris Brandt <Chris.Brandt@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > + /* If foutvco is above 1.5GHz, change parent and recalculate
> > > > +*/ if (priv->mux_dsi_div_params.clksrc && (foutvco_rate >
> > > > +1500000000)) {
> > >
> > > Check patch is complaining:
> > >
> > > CHECK: Unnecessary parentheses around 'foutvco_rate > 1500000000'
> > > #146: FILE: drivers/clk/renesas/rzg2l-cpg.c:648:
> > > + if (priv->mux_dsi_div_params.clksrc && (foutvco_rate >
> > > +1500000000)) {
> >
> > I saw that...but I thought the ( ) makes it a little easier to read.
> >
> > But, what's the general rule here? Make checkpatch come out perfect?
> > What's your thoughts?
>
> I just ran check patch and it complained this.
> I am leaving Geert to comment on this.
/me chimes in ;-)
You are not required to fix checkpatch warnings or errors if you have a good reason to do so. In this case, I see no reason for the parentheses (it is not a very complex expression), so please drop them.
Thanks!
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
-- Linus Torvalds
