From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: maxime.ripard@bootlin.com (Maxime Ripard) Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2018 11:25:57 +0100 Subject: [PATCH 01/15] clk: sunxi-ng: Add check for minimal rate to NM PLLs In-Reply-To: References: <20180224214545.3740-1-jernej.skrabec@siol.net> <20180224214545.3740-2-jernej.skrabec@siol.net> <20180226093800.uwbo54wrdcwmsyzh@flea.lan> Message-ID: <20180226102557.7bgjs3txp7cbridn@flea.lan> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 05:43:01PM +0800, Chen-Yu Tsai wrote: > On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 5:38 PM, Maxime Ripard > wrote: > > Hi, > > > > On Sat, Feb 24, 2018 at 10:45:31PM +0100, Jernej Skrabec wrote: > >> Some NM PLLs doesn't work well when their output clock rate is set below > >> certain rate. > >> > >> Add support for that constrain. > > > > In such a case, you should round the rate to the minimum the clock can > > operate at, and not return an error. > > That's true for round_rate. But what's the expected behavior of set_rate? > AFAIK we presume all users call round_rate before set_rate, but that doesn't > seem to be true all the time. One of the first things that happens during a set_rate is a round_rate: https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v4.16-rc3/source/drivers/clk/clk.c#L1873 Maxime -- Maxime Ripard, Bootlin (formerly Free Electrons) Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering https://bootlin.com -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 833 bytes Desc: not available URL: