[PATCH 05/10] clk: Add support for simple dividers

Sascha Hauer
2011-04-19T09:31:26Z

On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 01:55:17AM -0700, Saravana Kannan wrote:
> On Tue, April 19, 2011 12:32 am, Uwe Kleine-K?nig wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 07:45:53PM -0700, Saravana Kannan wrote:
> >> On 04/18/2011 03:07 AM, Sascha Hauer wrote:
> >> >On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 11:49:09AM +0200, Uwe Kleine-K?nig wrote:
> >> >>On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 09:08:10PM +0200, Sascha Hauer wrote:
> >> >AFAIK there are two different implementation types in the tree. Some
> >> >implementations only allow to set to the exact rate round_rate returns
> >> >while others round down in set_rate.
> >> >
> >> >Has this been specified what behaviour is expected?
> >> >
> >>
> >> This is something I have nagged Russell once or twice about and then
> >> sent out an email to the list for which there was very limited
> >> response. I think clk_round_rate() is too generic and not very
> >> useful.
> >>
> >> We should really have something like:
> >> clk_set_rate_range(min, ideal, max)
> > (Note this is orthogonal to the question if set_rate may barf on values
> > other than the return values of round_rate.)
> >
> > clk_set_rate_range can even be implemented with clk_round_rate that is
> > just required to fulfill:
>
> I think it's more important that we try to find a new API that's better
> than clk_round_rate(). We can worry about the specifics of the
> implementation later.

You found it and Uwe found a way to implement this ontop of the old API,
that's a comfortable situation, isn't it?

Sascha

--
Pengutronix e.K. | |
Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ |
Peiner Str. 6-8, 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0 |
Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 |