From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Lucas Stach Subject: Re: [PATCH] ARM: tegra: dynamically calculate pll_d parameters Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2012 10:19:36 +0100 Message-ID: <1355822376.1490.55.camel@tellur> References: <1355767103-5303-1-git-send-email-dev@lynxeye.de> <50D02B0F.4020307@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <50D02B0F.4020307-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> Sender: linux-tegra-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Mark Zhang Cc: linux-tegra-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, Thierry Reding , Stephen Warren , Prashant Gaikwad List-Id: linux-tegra@vger.kernel.org Am Dienstag, den 18.12.2012, 16:36 +0800 schrieb Mark Zhang: > I think we don't need to define a pll_ops for every individual pll. > That'll be redundant. Just use one pll_ops(with parameter dynamically > calculating) which is able to serve several plls is OK. Refer to > tegra30_clocks_data.c, it has already implemented this. > This would be the right thing to do in the long run. But PLL_D requires a lot less complexity than others to compute the PLL values, because of the constraints that could be applied. That's why I started doing a simple function to only make PLL_D dynamic. I could certainly go ahead and come up with something which applies to all PLLs, but I imagine this might be even a bigger validation hassle for NVidia. Also I'm still not sure how much this patch collides with the clock rework. I don't know how far this rework has progressed already and I would like to avoid doing redundant work. Prashant could you please clarify? Regards, Lucas