Hi Emilio,
On Sat, Sep 13, 2014 at 11:43:46AM -0300, Emilio López wrote:
> Hi,
>
> El 06/09/14 a las 07:47, Chen-Yu Tsai escibió:
> >Some factor clocks, mostly PLLs, have an extra fixed divider just before
> >the clock output. Add an option to the factor clk driver config data to
> >specify this divider.
> >
> >Signed-off-by: Chen-Yu Tsai <wens@xxxxxxxx>
> >---
> > drivers/clk/sunxi/clk-factors.c | 3 +++
> > drivers/clk/sunxi/clk-factors.h | 1 +
> > 2 files changed, 4 insertions(+)
> >
> >diff --git a/drivers/clk/sunxi/clk-factors.c b/drivers/clk/sunxi/clk-factors.c
> >index 2057c8a..435111d 100644
> >--- a/drivers/clk/sunxi/clk-factors.c
> >+++ b/drivers/clk/sunxi/clk-factors.c
> >@@ -64,6 +64,9 @@ static unsigned long clk_factors_recalc_rate(struct clk_hw *hw,
> > /* Calculate the rate */
> > rate = (parent_rate * (n + config->n_start) * (k + 1) >> p) / (m + 1);
> >
> >+ if (config->post_div)
> >+ rate /= config->post_div;
> >+
> > return rate;
> > }
> >
> >diff --git a/drivers/clk/sunxi/clk-factors.h b/drivers/clk/sunxi/clk-factors.h
> >index d2d0efa..ce70c65 100644
> >--- a/drivers/clk/sunxi/clk-factors.h
> >+++ b/drivers/clk/sunxi/clk-factors.h
> >@@ -16,6 +16,7 @@ struct clk_factors_config {
> > u8 pshift;
> > u8 pwidth;
> > u8 n_start;
> >+ u8 post_div;
> > };
> >
> > struct clk_factors {
> >
>
> For the record, I liked your solution on[1] more, as it's in line
> with what we're doing on the other sunxi platforms, instead of
> adding features in factors to cover for some cases. But it's your
> and Maxime's call, as I haven't written any of the sun6i code so
> far.
No, you still wrote most of the clock support, so your opinion is
always valuable (and valued).
Thing is, unlike what was done in the sun4i driver where there was a
"real" technical issue that was preventing us from using only
fixed-factor, we're not in such a case in sun6i (and later,
apparently).
PLL6 has only one output, which is then directly multiplied by
fixed-factors, without any (pre|post)-dividers for any of them.
That means that following what you did for the sun4i would just
register 3 "dumbs" fixed-factors, that we couldn't reference from DT,
or through a cryptic index (which is not even documented in our
bindings).
I'd be fine either way, I just prefer the solution that has less code
and is more explicit.
Maxime
--
Maxime Ripard, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering
http://free-electrons.com
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
