On Tue, 2014-05-20 at 10:48AM -0700, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> 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.
Sounds good to me. Are there any cases of clocks that round up? I think
that case would not be handled correctly. But I also don't see a use
case for such an implementation.
Sören
--
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
