From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 2/5] clk: Introduce 'clk_round_rate_nearest()' Date: Mon, 26 May 2014 13:47:44 +0200 Message-ID: <9956935.0oj56vcaUh@vostro.rjw.lan> References: <20140521073457.GD31687@pengutronix.de> <9956925.Qsz2bH3rDg@vostro.rjw.lan> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: cpufreq-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Viresh Kumar Cc: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?S=F6ren?= Brinkmann , Mike Turquette , Uwe =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Kleine=2DK=F6nig?= , Russell King , Stephen Boyd , "linux-pm@vger.kernel.org" , Michal Simek , "cpufreq@vger.kernel.org" , Linux Kernel Mailing List , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org On Monday, May 26, 2014 04:37:13 PM Viresh Kumar wrote: > On 26 May 2014 16:52, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > I agree as far as the 64-bit thing goes, but is switching to Hz really > > necessary? > > Don't really know that.. It seems that there will always be problems with > close enough frequencies whenever rounding is done. Well, rounding errors are a problem, but question is if that is enough of a problem to justify expanding the storage size twice. Also, that'd be a performance hit on 32-bit systems. > More can be elaborated by Soren. OK Rafael