linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: tomi.valkeinen@ti.com (Tomi Valkeinen)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH] clk: divider: fix rate calculation for fractional rates
Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2013 13:48:44 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <527A2C9C.4080409@ti.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20131106111534.GW16735@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk>

On 2013-11-06 13:15, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 06, 2013 at 01:06:48PM +0200, Tomi Valkeinen wrote:
>> This means that the following code works a bit oddly:
>>
>> rate = clk_round_rate(clk, 123428572);
>> clk_set_rate(clk, rate);
> 
> You're right, but the above sequence is quite a crass thing to do.  Why?

Do you mean that you think the fix is right, but the above example
sequence is silly, or that the fix is not needed either?

> clk_round_rate() returns the clock rate that clk_set_rate() would give
> you if you were to use this sequence:
> 
> 	clk_rate_rate(clk, 123428572);
> 	rate = clk_get_rate(clk);
> 
> The difference is that it doesn't change the actual clock rate itself;
> clk_round_rate() is meant to answer the question:
> 
> 	"If I were to set _this_ rate, what clock rate would
> 	 the clock give me?"
> 
> thereby providing a method for drivers to inquire what the effect would
> be when changing such a clock without actually affecting it.
> 
> So please, don't use clk_round_rate() followed by clk_set_rate().

Ok, if defined like that, then the current behavior is logical.

The comment in clk.h says "adjust a rate to the exact rate a clock can
provide", which does not contradict with what you said, but doesn't
really confirm it either. If I get "the exact rate a clock can provide"
I don't see why I can't use that exact clock rate for clk_set_rate.
Maybe the comment should be improved to state explicitly what it does.

However, how about the following sequence:

	clk_set_rate(clk, 123428572);
	rate = clk_get_rate(clk);
	clk_set_rate(clk, rate);

I didn't test that but it should result in the clock first set to
123428571, and then to 108000000. Obviously pointless if done exactly
like that, but I don't see why the above code sequence is wrong, yet it
gives a bit surprising result.

 Tomi


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 901 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/attachments/20131106/8ae3124c/attachment.sig>

  reply	other threads:[~2013-11-06 11:48 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2013-11-06 11:06 [PATCH] clk: divider: fix rate calculation for fractional rates Tomi Valkeinen
2013-11-06 11:15 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2013-11-06 11:48   ` Tomi Valkeinen [this message]
2013-11-06 16:19     ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2014-01-28  8:45       ` Tomi Valkeinen
2014-01-28 10:32         ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2014-01-28 10:40           ` Tomi Valkeinen
2014-02-11 14:18 ` Tomi Valkeinen

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=527A2C9C.4080409@ti.com \
    --to=tomi.valkeinen@ti.com \
    --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).