On Mon, Oct 29, 2018 at 06:10:47PM +0530, Jagan Teki wrote: > On 29/10/18 2:28 PM, Maxime Ripard wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 25, 2018 at 04:25:59PM +0530, Jagan Teki wrote: > > > On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 11:34 PM Maxime Ripard > > > <maxime.ripard@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 09:20:22PM +0530, Jagan Teki wrote: > > > > > Some NKM PLLs doesn't work well when their output clock rate is set below > > > > > certain rate. > > > > > > > > > > So, add support for minimal rate for relevant PLLs. > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Jagan Teki <jagan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > --- > > > > > Changes for v2: > > > > > - new patch > > > > > > > > > > drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_nkm.c | 7 +++++++ > > > > > drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_nkm.h | 1 + > > > > > 2 files changed, 8 insertions(+) > > > > > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_nkm.c b/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_nkm.c > > > > > index 841840e35e61..d17539dc88dd 100644 > > > > > --- a/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_nkm.c > > > > > +++ b/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_nkm.c > > > > > @@ -125,6 +125,13 @@ static unsigned long ccu_nkm_round_rate(struct ccu_mux_internal *mux, > > > > > if (nkm->common.features & CCU_FEATURE_FIXED_POSTDIV) > > > > > rate *= nkm->fixed_post_div; > > > > > > > > > > + if (rate < nkm->min_rate) { > > > > > + rate = nkm->min_rate; > > > > > + if (nkm->common.features & CCU_FEATURE_FIXED_POSTDIV) > > > > > + rate /= nkm->fixed_post_div; > > > > > > > > I'm not sure this is right. Is the post divider taken into account to > > > > calculate the minimum, or is the minimum on the rate before the fixed > > > > post divider. > > > > > > Since we are returning from here, we need to take care post div which > > > is actually doing at the end of round_rate. > > > > That's not my point though. Does the rate needs to be superior to min > > / post_div, or min? > > ie what I'm trying to say, since it's common code min or max should / > post_div and PLL_MIPI doesn't use any post_div. > > We need to take care post_div though the current test (PLL_MIPI) in not used > since it's common code. just like nkmp, nm etc. > > > > > > > > > > > How did you test this? > > > > > > I've not used this on PLL_MIPI atleast, so I didn't test this. > > > > If you've never tested this, why are you adding that code? > > Like above, it's common code. otherwise might effect. Adding untested, unverified and unneeded code is just bloat, nothing else. Maxime -- Maxime Ripard, Bootlin Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering https://bootlin.com
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel