From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: skannan@codeaurora.org (Saravana Kannan) Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2012 14:33:00 -0700 Subject: [PATCH v7 2/3] clk: introduce the common clock framework In-Reply-To: <4F6946AA.4070201@codeaurora.org> References: <1331878280-2758-1-git-send-email-mturquette@linaro.org> <1331878280-2758-3-git-send-email-mturquette@linaro.org> <20120320140220.GE32469@S2101-09.ap.freescale.net> <4F6946AA.4070201@codeaurora.org> Message-ID: <4F6CEC0C.4060704@codeaurora.org> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On 03/20/2012 08:10 PM, Saravana Kannan wrote: > On 03/20/2012 04:53 PM, Turquette, Mike wrote: >> It does make me >> wonder if it would be a good idea to pass in the parent rate for >> .set_parent, which is analogous to .set_rate in many ways. > > I need to think a bit more about this. I was thinking about this. I think the common clock fwk should let the set_parent ops "return" the rate of the clock in addition to passing the rate of the parent in. Say this is a divider clock and some one changes the parent. The cached "rate" of the clock in the clock fwk is no longer correct. So, the clock fwk should also add a "*new_rate" param to set parent ops. Thanks, Saravana -- Sent by an employee of the Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum.