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

Saravana Kannan
2011-04-19T22:28:50Z

Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@pengutronix.de> wrote:

>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?

Well, do we all agree to this new API? I have no problem with Uwe's helper fn or his suggestion, if we all agree on the final API. I just didn't want him wasting his time when the API is not finalized.

-Saravana

--
Sent by an employee of the Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc.
The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum.