On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 08:02:32PM +0000, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 07:59:45PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote: > > + rate = clk_round_rate(clk, rate); > Hmm. Does both clk_set_rate() (which will then call this method) and > clk_round_rate() both take the same spinlock? Indeed they do. > Since clk_round_rate() is supposed to tell you what rate you end up > with if you were to ask for clk_set_rate() to set it for you, maybe > the actual clk_set_rate() implementation should be pre-rounding the > rate using the round_rate() method before calling these set_rate() > methods, so they don't have to? > That would ensure that round_rate() does return the right thing (if > it doesn't you won't get the right rate from set_rate). That'd be useful, yes. In this specific case the problem may well go away - this clock is almost the only user of APLL so it may make sense to collapse it into APLL once I've fully understood what the requirements are there. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe cpufreq" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
