Quoting Boris BREZILLON (2014-05-14 00:30:59)
> Hello Mike,
>
> On 14/05/2014 02:51, Mike Turquette wrote:
> > Quoting Boris BREZILLON (2014-05-09 04:11:49)
> >> +struct clk_ops ar100_ops = {
> >> + .recalc_rate = ar100_recalc_rate,
> >> + .determine_rate = ar100_determine_rate,
> >> + .set_parent = ar100_set_parent,
> >> + .get_parent = ar100_get_parent,
> >> + .set_rate = ar100_set_rate,
> >> +};
> > I might be having a brain fart, but is there a valid case for having
> > both a .recalc_rate and a .determine_rate? I believe that the former
> > will never be used and the latter will always be used by the clock
> > framework core.
>
> I think you're mistaking recalc_rate for round_rate.
> AFAIK, recalc_rate is mandatory for a clk that implement either
> round_rate or determine_rate.
I *was* having a brain fart. You're right of course. Too many .r*_rate()
callbacks...
Thanks,
Mike
>
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Boris
>
> --
> Boris Brezillon, Free Electrons
> Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
> http://free-electrons.com
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
