From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S934407AbcECSIc (ORCPT ); Tue, 3 May 2016 14:08:32 -0400 Received: from muru.com ([72.249.23.125]:53247 "EHLO muru.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S933925AbcECSIb (ORCPT ); Tue, 3 May 2016 14:08:31 -0400 Date: Tue, 3 May 2016 11:08:26 -0700 From: Tony Lindgren To: "J.D. Schroeder" Cc: Tero Kristo , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, bcousson@baylibre.com, robh+dt@kernel.org, pawel.moll@arm.com, mark.rutland@arm.com, ijc+devicetree@hellion.org.uk, galak@codeaurora.org, linux@arm.linux.org.uk, linux-omap@vger.kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, jay.schroeder@garmin.com, Matthijs van Duin Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] ARM: DRA7x: dts: Update the OSC_32K_CLK frequency Message-ID: <20160503180826.GP5995@atomide.com> References: <20160427171658.GA5995@atomide.com> <1462209123-7332-1-git-send-email-Linux.HWI@garmin.com> <1462209123-7332-3-git-send-email-Linux.HWI@garmin.com> <57285E66.2000708@ti.com> <5728A81F.4050906@garmin.com> <20160503164323.GN5995@atomide.com> <5728E0BC.3080509@ti.com> <5728E495.4010502@garmin.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <5728E495.4010502@garmin.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * J.D. Schroeder [160503 10:50]: > On 05/03/2016 12:32 PM, Tero Kristo wrote: > > Personally I would not recommend using this clock for any timing sensitive > > applications. May I ask why you are interested in the exact clock rate of this > > clock anyway? > > I'm not interested in using this clock and I'm not sure how anyone would use > this clock outside of the processor. See the inline comment that is part of > the change and the commit message for the change. There is no hint in my > change that this is an exact clock rate. It is a clarifying change to help > others avoid using this clock as a 32 kHz clock (which the current clock name > and frequency imply) and it more accurately represents the actual hardware > behavior. Well if it's inaccurate, how about we just add comments to the clock? Tony