[PATCH] clk samsung exynos5420 add CLK_RECALC_NEW_RATES flag to mout_apll and mout_kpll clock.

[PATCH] clk samsung exynos5420 add CLK_RECALC_NEW_RATES flag to mout_apll and mout_kpll clock.

[Anand Moon]

Addition of CLK_RECALC_NEW_RATES flag to support Exynos5 cpu clk so that
correct divider values are re-calculated after both pre/post
clock notifiers had run for for mout_apll clock and mout_kpll clock.

Depend on https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/4/3/388

Tested on OdroidXU3 Board.

Signed-off-by: Anand Moon <linux.amoon@gmail.com>
---
 drivers/clk/samsung/clk-exynos5420.c | 4 ++--
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/clk/samsung/clk-exynos5420.c b/drivers/clk/samsung/clk-exynos5420.c
index 462aaee..6c7458c 100644
--- a/drivers/clk/samsung/clk-exynos5420.c
+++ b/drivers/clk/samsung/clk-exynos5420.c
@@ -618,10 +618,10 @@ static struct samsung_mux_clock exynos5x_mux_clks[] __initdata = {
 	MUX(0, "mout_mspll_cpu", mout_mspll_cpu_p, SRC_TOP7, 12, 2),
 
 	MUX_F(0, "mout_apll", mout_apll_p, SRC_CPU, 0, 1,
-	      CLK_SET_RATE_PARENT, 0),
+	      CLK_SET_RATE_PARENT | CLK_RECALC_NEW_RATES, 0),
 	MUX(0, "mout_cpu", mout_cpu_p, SRC_CPU, 16, 1),
 	MUX_F(0, "mout_kpll", mout_kpll_p, SRC_KFC, 0, 1,
-	      CLK_SET_RATE_PARENT, 0),
+	      CLK_SET_RATE_PARENT | CLK_RECALC_NEW_RATES, 0),
 	MUX(0, "mout_kfc", mout_kfc_p, SRC_KFC, 16, 1),
 
 	MUX(0, "mout_aclk200", mout_group1_p, SRC_TOP0, 8, 2),
-- 
1.9.1

[PATCH] clk samsung exynos5420 add CLK_RECALC_NEW_RATES flag to mout_apll and mout_kpll clock.

[Krzysztof Kozlowski]

2015-05-08 2:48 GMT+09:00 Anand Moon <linux.amoon@gmail.com>:
> Addition of CLK_RECALC_NEW_RATES flag to support Exynos5 cpu clk so that
> correct divider values are re-calculated after both pre/post
> clock notifiers had run for for mout_apll clock and mout_kpll clock.
s/for for/for/

Could you precise in commit message the observational effects
*without* this patch? In other words: what is fixed? The divider will
have incorrect values?

>
> Depend on https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/4/3/388
>
> Tested on OdroidXU3 Board.

Thanks for providing this information. However
1. Patch dependency should not be part of commit message, It simply
won't provide any meaningful information when they are merged.
2. Similarly testing platform also is not always put in commit message.

So just put them after separator (triple-dash).

After fixing the commit message:
Reviewed-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <k.kozlowski@samsung.com>

Best regards,
Krzysztof

[PATCH] clk samsung exynos5420 add CLK_RECALC_NEW_RATES flag to mout_apll and mout_kpll clock.

[Anand Moon]

Hi Krysztof,

Actually the patch is based on https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/4/3/389
I don't know how to measure the energy consumption when compared to
cpufreq-exynos.

I will update the commit log and resend it with you review.

-Anand Moon




On 8 May 2015 at 05:44, Krzysztof Kozlowski <k.kozlowski@samsung.com> wrote:
> 2015-05-08 2:48 GMT+09:00 Anand Moon <linux.amoon@gmail.com>:
>> Addition of CLK_RECALC_NEW_RATES flag to support Exynos5 cpu clk so that
>> correct divider values are re-calculated after both pre/post
>> clock notifiers had run for for mout_apll clock and mout_kpll clock.
> s/for for/for/
>
> Could you precise in commit message the observational effects
> *without* this patch? In other words: what is fixed? The divider will
> have incorrect values?
>
>>
>> Depend on https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/4/3/388
>>
>> Tested on OdroidXU3 Board.
>
> Thanks for providing this information. However
> 1. Patch dependency should not be part of commit message, It simply
> won't provide any meaningful information when they are merged.
> 2. Similarly testing platform also is not always put in commit message.
>
> So just put them after separator (triple-dash).
>
> After fixing the commit message:
> Reviewed-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <k.kozlowski@samsung.com>
>
> Best regards,
> Krzysztof

[PATCH] clk samsung exynos5420 add CLK_RECALC_NEW_RATES flag to mout_apll and mout_kpll clock.

[Krzysztof Kozlowski]

On 08.05.2015 13:01, Anand Moon wrote:
> Hi Krysztof,
> 
> Actually the patch is based on https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/4/3/389
> I don't know how to measure the energy consumption when compared to
> cpufreq-exynos.

It does not have to be energy consumption. It may be something else
visible, like wrong values for clock rates. I don't know, it is your
patch so you should know *what is fixed* (or changed).

Best regards,
Krzysztof