From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: jonas@microbit.se (Jonas Andersson)
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2015 13:24:04 +0200
Subject: at91 clocks
In-Reply-To: <55156C3E.9000203@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>
 <20150327145410.39873958@bbrezillon> <55156C3E.9000203@microbit.se>
Message-ID: <55193254.9020408@microbit.se>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

Hi Boris,

On 2015-03-27 15:42, Jonas Andersson wrote:
>
>> 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) ?
>
> Yes I'll try to do it on Monday next week.
>
Result and source at http://pastie.org/10062457

Best regards
  Jonas