On 05/20/14 09:01, Sören Brinkmann wrote:
>
>>>>> +{
>>>>> + unsigned long lower, upper, cur, lower_last, upper_last;
>>>>> +
>>>>> + lower = clk_round_rate(clk, rate);
>>>>> + if (lower >= rate)
>>>>> + return lower;
>>>> Is the >-case worth a warning?
>>> No, it's correct behavior. If you request a rate that is way lower than what the
>>> clock can generate, returning something larger is perfectly valid, IMHO.
>>> Which reveals one problem in this whole discussion. The API does not
>>> require clk_round_rate() to round down. It is actually an implementation
>>> choice that had been made for clk-divider.
>> I'm sure it's more than an implementation choice for clk-divider. But I
>> don't find any respective documentation (but I didn't try hard).
> A similar discussion - without final conclusion:
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2010/7/14/260
>
>
Please call this new API something like clk_find_nearest_rate() or
something. clk_round_rate() is supposed to return the rate that will be
set if you call clk_set_rate() with the same arguments. It's up to the
implementation to decide if that means rounding the rate up or down or
to the nearest value.
--
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum,
hosted by The Linux Foundation
--
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
