From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: mturquette@linaro.org (Mike Turquette) Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2015 18:31:03 -0800 Subject: [PATCH v2] clk: sunxi: fix sun6i PLL1 .recalc_rate() result In-Reply-To: References: <1422088959-23365-1-git-send-email-wens@csie.org> <20150124152944.GE8470@lukather> <20150128014105.22722.46052@quantum> <20150128180141.22722.98983@quantum> Message-ID: <20150129023103.22722.42964@quantum> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org Quoting Chen-Yu Tsai (2015-01-28 13:57:14) > On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 7:01 PM, Mike Turquette wrote: > > Quoting Chen-Yu Tsai (2015-01-27 22:19:22) > >> On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 2:41 AM, Mike Turquette wrote: > >> > Quoting Maxime Ripard (2015-01-24 07:29:44) > >> >> Hi Mike, > >> >> > >> >> On Sat, Jan 24, 2015 at 04:42:39PM +0800, Chen-Yu Tsai wrote: > >> >> > PLL1 on sun6i has its N factor start from 1 (N = register value + 1). > >> >> > Make the factors clk driver aware of this so clk_factors_recalc_rate() > >> >> > gives the correct result. > >> >> > > >> >> > Cc: # 3.12 9a5e6c7eb5cc clk: sunxi: Support factor > >> >> > Cc: # 3.12 > >> >> > Signed-off-by: Chen-Yu Tsai > >> >> > >> >> Could you queue this for 3.19? > >> > > >> > This is fixed in 76820fc in clk-next, destined for 3.20. > >> > > >> > Also I'm confused by the stable tags above. Looks like 9a5e6c7eb5cc was > >> > merged for 3.16, not 3.12. > >> > >> I think so. I wasn't quite sure what the version number was > >> supposed to be, the first version it is applicable? or the > >> first version the specific patch was merged. > > > > Chen-Yu, > > > > I think that struct clk_factors_config did not have the n_start member > > before 9a5e6c7eb5cc, so this patch could not apply without 9a5e6c7eb5cc. > > That's from memory though, and I might be mis-remembering. > > AFAIK the stable-commit doc explains the format above as cherry-picking > 9a5e6c7eb5cc first, then applying this patch. I just learned something new. I didn't know about the cherry-picking format. That's cool. > > > The fix is not for a new regression, thus it is going into 3.20 and I am > > remiss to rebase my tree to add a stable tag. Can you submit this to > > stable yourself after 3.20-rc1? I think the proper thing to do is to > > reference this patch and the commitlog to show that it was fixed > > upstream. > > Sure. Also CC-ing Hans, as his name is on the patch for 3.20. :) Thanks! Regards, Mike > > ChenYu > > > Regards, > > Mike > > > >> > >> ChenYu > >> > >> >> > >> >> Thanks, > >> >> Maxime > >> >> > >> >> -- > >> >> Maxime Ripard, Free Electrons > >> >> Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering > >> >> http://free-electrons.com