linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de (Uwe Kleine-König)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH] clk: divider: Use DIV_ROUND_CLOSEST
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2013 10:15:31 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20130321091531.GN20530@pengutronix.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20130320185051.GA28349@pengutronix.de>

Hello,

On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 07:50:51PM +0100, Sascha Hauer wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 09:32:51AM -0700, S?ren Brinkmann wrote:
> > If the caller
> > doesn't like the returned frequency he can request a different one.
> > And he's eventually happy with the return value he calls
> > clk_set_rate() requesting the frequency clk_round_rate() returned.
> > Always rounding down seems a bit odd to me.
> > 
> > Another issue with the current implmentation:
> > clk_divider_round_rate() calls clk_divider_bestdiv(), which uses the ROUND_UP macro, returning a rather low frequency.
> 
> And that is correct. clk_divider_bestdiv is used to calculate the
> maximum parent frequency for which a given divider value does not
> exceed the desired rate.
The reason for that is that the (more?) usual constraint is like: This
mmc card can handle up to 100 MHz. Or this i2c device can handle up to
this and that frequency. Of course there are different constraints, e.g.
for a UART if the target baud speed is 38400 you better run at 38402
than at 19201.

I wonder if it depends on the clock if you want "best approximation <=
requested value" or "best approximation" or on the caller. In the former
case a flag for the clock would be the right thing (as suggested in this
thread). If however it's the caller of round_rate who knows better which
rounding is preferred than better extend the clk API.

Extending the API could just be a convenience function that doesn't
affect the implementations of the clk API. E.g.:

	long clk_round_rate_nearest(struct clk *clk, unsigned long rate)
	{
		long lower_limit = clk_round_rate(clk, rate);
		long upper_limit = clk_round_rate(clk, rate + (rate - lower_limit));

		if (rate - lower_limit < upper_limit - rate)
			return lower_limit;
		else
			return upper_limit;
	}

Best regards
Uwe

-- 
Pengutronix e.K.                           | Uwe Kleine-K?nig            |
Industrial Linux Solutions                 | http://www.pengutronix.de/  |

  reply	other threads:[~2013-03-21  9:15 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2013-01-30  1:25 [PATCH] clk: divider: Use DIV_ROUND_CLOSEST Soren Brinkmann
2013-02-08  2:17 ` Sören Brinkmann
2013-03-20  0:16 ` Mike Turquette
2013-03-20 16:32   ` Sören Brinkmann
2013-03-20 18:50     ` Sascha Hauer
2013-03-21  9:15       ` Uwe Kleine-König [this message]
2013-03-26 22:45         ` Sören Brinkmann
2013-03-27  1:37           ` Mike Turquette
2013-04-01 23:24             ` Sören Brinkmann
2013-04-03  0:38               ` Mike Turquette
2013-03-21 16:36       ` Sören Brinkmann
2013-03-25 10:37         ` Sascha Hauer

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20130321091531.GN20530@pengutronix.de \
    --to=u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).