From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: s.hauer@pengutronix.de (Sascha Hauer) Date: Thu, 3 May 2012 08:37:21 +0200 Subject: [PATCH V3 2/8] clk: add a fixed factor clock In-Reply-To: <4FA21879.9060508@st.com> References: <20120502094807.GE20478@pengutronix.de> <4FA120E8.5030707@st.com> <20120502224108.GC18402@gmail.com> <4FA21879.9060508@st.com> Message-ID: <20120503063721.GD4141@pengutronix.de> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Thu, May 03, 2012 at 11:02:41AM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote: > On 5/3/2012 4:11 AM, Mike Turquette wrote: > > I will take this patch in before sending my request to Arnd. In your > > patch 0/8 you ask me to take in the series, but it looks like not all of > > the patches are going through me. For instance patch 2/8 certainly > > looks destined for Russell. > > I think you only need to take this patch, i.e. 2/8. > Others will go through Arnd directly, keeping your branch as an dependency > branch for it. > > > After fixing up this patch can you resend a clean series which is only > > headed for clk-next? > > So, i would be sending this patch only after applying the last fixup > (hopefully :) ). > > @Sascha: Please see if this patch is sufficient. > > --- > drivers/clk/clk-fixed-factor.c | 9 ++++----- > 1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/clk/clk-fixed-factor.c b/drivers/clk/clk-fixed-factor.c > index 9afbdc4..8d25c2e 100644 > --- a/drivers/clk/clk-fixed-factor.c > +++ b/drivers/clk/clk-fixed-factor.c > @@ -37,16 +37,15 @@ static long clk_factor_round_rate(struct clk_hw *hw, unsigned long rate, > { > struct clk_fixed_factor *fix = to_clk_fixed_factor(hw); > > - if (prate) { > + if (__clk_get_flags(hw->clk) & CLK_SET_RATE_PARENT) { > unsigned long best_parent; > + > best_parent = (rate / fix->mult) * fix->div; > *prate = __clk_round_rate(__clk_get_parent(hw->clk), > best_parent); > - return (*prate / fix->div) * fix->mult; > - } else { > - return (__clk_get_rate(__clk_get_parent(hw->clk)) / fix->div) * > - fix->mult; > } > + > + return (*prate / fix->div) * fix->mult; > } Yes, looks good. Sascha -- Pengutronix e.K. | | Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ | Peiner Str. 6-8, 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0 | Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 |