From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tero Kristo Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] clk: ti: omap36xx: Work around sprz319 advisory 2.1 Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2016 14:24:05 +0200 Message-ID: References: <1480713278-6884-1-git-send-email-laurent.pinchart@ideasonboard.com> <2239782.MNuANFihMe@avalon> <20161205093649.GA31898@localhost.localdomain> <3176488.xoM6adFiVO@avalon> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <3176488.xoM6adFiVO@avalon> Sender: linux-clk-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Laurent Pinchart , Ladislav Michl Cc: linux-omap@vger.kernel.org, linux-clk@vger.kernel.org, Paul Walmsley , Richard Watts , Tony Lindgren , Alexander Kinzer , Stephen Boyd , Michael Turquette List-Id: linux-omap@vger.kernel.org On 05/12/16 13:08, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > Hi Ladislav, > > On Monday 05 Dec 2016 10:36:49 Ladislav Michl wrote: >> On Mon, Dec 05, 2016 at 10:46:43AM +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote: >>> On Monday 05 Dec 2016 09:22:10 Ladislav Michl wrote: >> >> [snip] >> >>>> Table 36 list two options with 26MHz clocks: m=443, n=11 and m=480, n=12 >>>> with a statement: "The choice between these two options with a 26 MHz >>>> input should be based on characterization on the end system." >>>> >>>> Shall we care about that? >>> >>> I'd like to, but at the moment I don't see how. Proposals are welcome :-) >>> I >> >> One of proposals raised earlier was DT property, but that idea was scratched >> later. > > It might not be such a bad idea, given that the decision should be made based > on the characterization of the whole system. One could argue that such > platform information could have its place in DT. > >>> don't think addressing that issue should be a blocker to get this patch >>> merged though. >> >> Of course not. I'd like to even see it in stable ;-) >> >> [snip] >> >>> I had tried that, but I find the code less readable :-S >> >> Oh... Please reconsider (I really do not like that extra test and extra >> assignment to local variables (also I had 'precomputed' as mixed definition, >> but Tero did not quite like that)) :-) > > I still like to favour code readability when possible (especially when the > compiler should optimize both versions the same way). I'm not the maintainer > of this driver though, so I'll let Tero decides what he prefers. The compiler should ideally generate same size code for these both. Personally, I don't mind which version goes in; I'd say both are as readable. Stephen, Mike, is one of you going to pick this up? I don't think I have anything else to pull due to the ongoing discussion with the other pending stuff. -Tero > >> Also, checked if the same values are written to clk as with my patch, so >> here's my: >> Tested-by: Ladislav Michl > > Thank you. >