From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from foss.arm.com (foss.arm.com [217.140.110.172]) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1AB7B346AFD; Tue, 28 Apr 2026 22:21:14 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=217.140.110.172 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1777414878; cv=none; b=RJJBoPKE06bpZrPZu30HFj8w6FCAYM7yLslC+ZN2C6ttQHSKtQvDDFWo8MtDfMzHADJCqSUq6k5k2zhTsQXE6l/kjBXhkCT4/4uwF3li/vchwKdRowR57m/sQ0K2s2jcjGDzcjUbngdl7mCxFXc6A4hnbeUWGLSmnFRiirf8PE8= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1777414878; c=relaxed/simple; bh=0oXuZXWwTkgdhqDH8uG96AOPYmMlsgWr1XRmX4V3t88=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=bDC33DnZ+EvCLUZ7Qh+ofb7Tgvuhb5uhCkQD6XTeZgwZSBtJ2rsbpPXLU1RhjVEFZqqwcbbM4FJvupj9YDNDNCoJ2w2qjWtZ7vw8+MsH9TWMNtXU/uoKJYIz3Nn0k0yc7tGyIbBeLHm2cZx1kOHmWSF094F4T2pKsBemXaEKC8E= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=arm.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=arm.com; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=arm.com header.i=@arm.com header.b=eIi55or1; arc=none smtp.client-ip=217.140.110.172 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=arm.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=arm.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=arm.com header.i=@arm.com header.b="eIi55or1" Received: from usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (unknown [10.121.207.14]) by usa-sjc-mx-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6277C1650; Tue, 28 Apr 2026 15:21:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pluto (usa-sjc-mx-foss1.foss.arm.com [172.31.20.19]) by usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7833F3F763; Tue, 28 Apr 2026 15:21:10 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=arm.com; s=foss; t=1777414873; bh=0oXuZXWwTkgdhqDH8uG96AOPYmMlsgWr1XRmX4V3t88=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=eIi55or15uZzRwFD8tshHMcSkHBRaNquAsw7E3sqdnb2b4dwEP5+wIufVG1JsM2LO 7+ZBJ3l3IkDkZzvWYdyd7zUlWWOiu+skJJhCqa7Gy/9ktfeh641NJeHxXvL/Fs0hu/ OzEoIf8GeLzHFH30PSiOSCKBXY5nwdF3pEsJTjh4= Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2026 23:20:57 +0100 From: Cristian Marussi To: Brian Masney Cc: Cristian Marussi , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, arm-scmi@vger.kernel.org, linux-clk@vger.kernel.org, linux-renesas-soc@vger.kernel.org, sudeep.holla@arm.com, philip.radford@arm.com, james.quinlan@broadcom.com, f.fainelli@gmail.com, vincent.guittot@linaro.org, etienne.carriere@foss.st.com, peng.fan@oss.nxp.com, michal.simek@amd.com, geert+renesas@glider.be, kuninori.morimoto.gx@renesas.com, marek.vasut+renesas@gmail.com, Michael Turquette , Stephen Boyd Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 03/15] clk: scmi: Use new determine_rate clock operation Message-ID: References: <20260428201522.903875-1-cristian.marussi@arm.com> <20260428201522.903875-4-cristian.marussi@arm.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: On Tue, Apr 28, 2026 at 04:33:38PM -0400, Brian Masney wrote: > Hi Cristian, > > On Tue, Apr 28, 2026 at 09:15:10PM +0100, Cristian Marussi wrote: > > Use the Clock protocol layer determine_rate logic to calculate the closest > > rate that can be supported by a specific clock. > > > > No functional change. > > > > Cc: Brian Masney > > Cc: Michael Turquette > > Cc: Stephen Boyd > > Cc: linux-clk@vger.kernel.org > > Signed-off-by: Cristian Marussi > > --- > > @brian: I'd modify further this clk-scmi driver, with a patch on top of > > this series, to properly use your new CLK_ROUNDING_NOOP flag once your > > series AND another (already reviewed) series on clk-scmi from Peng are in. Hi Brian, > > I don't know if Stephen is going to pick up my CLK_ROUNDING_NOOP series. > We talked about it in person at LPC in Tokyo, and he was the one that > suggested the flag rather than a new shared noop function. However he > didn't pick it up last development cycle. > > I would recommend NOT basing on that series of mine to reduce > dependencies, and so that your stuff doesn't get held up by series. > Ok, thanks for the heads up, I was indeed not able to find the _NOOP in v7.1-rc1 and I was NOT sure...anyway a patch on top of this whenever your series goes in should not be a problem....maybe if you can ping me when it's merged, it would be easy NOT to miss/forget :P Thanks, Cristian