From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: boris.brezillon@free-electrons.com (Boris Brezillon) Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2015 14:54:10 +0100 Subject: at91 clocks In-Reply-To: <55155262.9030501@microbit.se> References: <55117568.6090202@microbit.se> <20150325013201.3f01fc22@bbrezillon> <55127AA6.5050902@microbit.se> <20150325173751.0d6479df@bbrezillon> <5513D701.2080201@microbit.se> <20150326162827.041c051a@bbrezillon> <55152F3E.60004@microbit.se> <20150327132003.6caf3689@bbrezillon> <20150327132543.08ad636c@bbrezillon> <55155262.9030501@microbit.se> Message-ID: <20150327145410.39873958@bbrezillon> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Fri, 27 Mar 2015 13:51:46 +0100 Jonas Andersson wrote: > Hi Boris, > On 2015-03-27 13:25, Boris Brezillon wrote: > > On Fri, 27 Mar 2015 13:20:03 +0100 > > Boris Brezillon wrote: > > > > > >>> I tested with IS_ERR, changed this to IS_ERR_OR_NULL, but the pointer is ok. > >> Can you print clk_get_rate(parent_clk) result ? > > Could you also paste me the whole clk_summary content ? > > > > > http://pastie.org/10057268 Could you try with this patch [1] ? Anyway, I don't understand why clk_set_rate returns 0 even when it fails to set the appropriate rate. Could you add some traces in drivers/clk/at91/clk-pll.c (clk_pll_round_rate, clk_pll_set_rate and clk_pll_get_best_div_mul) ? Thanks, Boris [1]http://code.bulix.org/gxxhc4-88138 -- Boris Brezillon, Free Electrons Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering http://free-electrons.com