[PATCH 1/2] ARM: imx6q: add pll round_rate support

[shawn.guo@linaro.org (Shawn Guo)]

On 15 March 2012 23:00, Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@pengutronix.de> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 10:46:04PM +0800, Richard Zhao wrote:
>> On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 09:52:28AM +0100, Sascha Hauer wrote:
>> > On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 04:22:58PM +0800, Richard Zhao wrote:
>> > > Signed-off-by: Richard Zhao <richard.zhao@linaro.org>
>> > > ---
>> > >
>> > > ?#define DEF_PLL(name) ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?\
>> > > ? static struct clk name = { ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?\
>> > > @@ -681,6 +741,7 @@ static int pll_set_rate(struct clk *clk, unsigned long rate)
>> > > ? ? ? ? ? .disable ? ? ? ?= pll_disable, ? ? ? ? ?\
>> > > ? ? ? ? ? .get_rate ? ? ? = name##_get_rate, ? ? ?\
>> > > ? ? ? ? ? .set_rate ? ? ? = name##_set_rate, ? ? ?\
>> > > + ? ? ? ? .round_rate ? ? = name##_round_rate, ? ?\
>> >
>> > I hope this ## stuff is gone soon with the generic clock framework. It
>> > is so ugly and inefficient.
>> I hope this doesn't prevent this two patches go in.
>
> Given that we are short from getting a generic clock framework (and I
> think this time it's for real) and that you are not mention in any words
> what these patches fix I don't see a reason for merging them.
>
And I agree with Sascha.  Since I'm resuming my imx6 common clk
migration, you can keep an eye on the patches to ensure the changes
you are proposing here get rolled in.

Regards,
Shawn