calc_clk_div() will only return a non-zero value (-EINVAL)
in case of error. On the other hand, req->rate is an unsigned long.
It seems quite odd that req->rate would be assigned a negative value,
which is clearly not a rate, and success would be returned.

Reinstate previous logic, which would just return error.

Fixes: afd529d74002 ("ASoC: stm: stm32_i2s: convert from round_rate() to determine_rate()")
Link: https://scan7.scan.coverity.com/#/project-view/53936/11354?selectedIssue=1647702

Signed-off-by: Sergio Perez Gonzalez <sperezglz@gmail.com>
---
 sound/soc/stm/stm32_i2s.c | 7 ++-----
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)

diff --git a/sound/soc/stm/stm32_i2s.c b/sound/soc/stm/stm32_i2s.c
index 0e489097d9c1..6ca21780f21d 100644
--- a/sound/soc/stm/stm32_i2s.c
+++ b/sound/soc/stm/stm32_i2s.c
@@ -469,11 +469,8 @@ static int stm32_i2smclk_determine_rate(struct clk_hw *hw,
 	int ret;
 
 	ret = stm32_i2s_calc_clk_div(i2s, req->best_parent_rate, req->rate);
-	if (ret) {
-		req->rate = ret;
-
-		return 0;
-	}
+	if (ret)
+		return ret;
 
 	mclk->freq = req->best_parent_rate / i2s->divider;
 
-- 
2.43.0

On Mon, 28 Jul 2025 20:00:49 -0600, Sergio Perez Gonzalez wrote:
> calc_clk_div() will only return a non-zero value (-EINVAL)
> in case of error. On the other hand, req->rate is an unsigned long.
> It seems quite odd that req->rate would be assigned a negative value,
> which is clearly not a rate, and success would be returned.
> 
> Reinstate previous logic, which would just return error.
> 
> [...]

Applied to

   https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/broonie/sound.git for-next

Thanks!

[1/1] ASoC: stm: stm32_i2s: Fix calc_clk_div() error handling in determine_rate()
      commit: 0ebbab41fba1bae6ccd96c0eec17026700ac6534

All being well this means that it will be integrated into the linux-next
tree (usually sometime in the next 24 hours) and sent to Linus during
the next merge window (or sooner if it is a bug fix), however if
problems are discovered then the patch may be dropped or reverted.

You may get further e-mails resulting from automated or manual testing
and review of the tree, please engage with people reporting problems and
send followup patches addressing any issues that are reported if needed.

If any updates are required or you are submitting further changes they
should be sent as incremental updates against current git, existing
patches will not be replaced.

Please add any relevant lists and maintainers to the CCs when replying
to this mail.

Thanks,
Mark