From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de (Uwe =?iso-8859-1?Q?Kleine-K=F6nig?=) Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2012 09:26:05 +0200 Subject: [PATCH] clk: Update comment for clk_round_rate() In-Reply-To: <4F7D44AC.6040605@st.com> References: <4F7D299E.1050307@st.com> <20120405070324.GB27274@pengutronix.de> <4F7D44AC.6040605@st.com> Message-ID: <20120405072605.GC27274@pengutronix.de> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Thu, Apr 05, 2012 at 12:37:24PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote: > On 4/5/2012 12:33 PM, Uwe Kleine-K?nig wrote: > > It depends on your scenario. E.g. for an UART clock it might be better > > to choose 130. Here choosing the frequency is not about a fixed maximum > > but to match the sample rate of the device connect to your UART. > > My point was: we can almost always guarantee that device will still > be operational at any frequency below the one requested. But it may > not work at any freq above the requested one. So, giving 130 here may > break it. It depends. If for satisfying a request for 115200 Bd you have the choice between 115202 Bd and 57601 Bd, I'd recommend the former. Best regards Uwe -- Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-K?nig | Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ |