On Tue, Nov 20, 2018 at 4:26 PM Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 08:51:04PM +0530, Jagan Teki wrote: > > > > drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_nkm.c | 3 +++ > > > > drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_nkm.h | 1 + > > > > 2 files changed, 4 insertions(+) > > > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_nkm.c b/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_nkm.c > > > > index 6b5ad990f802..b8b66cdd30bf 100644 > > > > --- a/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_nkm.c > > > > +++ b/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_nkm.c > > > > @@ -128,6 +128,9 @@ static unsigned long ccu_nkm_round_rate(struct ccu_mux_internal *mux, > > > > if (rate < nkm->min_rate) > > > > return nkm->min_rate; > > > > > > > > + if (nkm->max_rate && rate > nkm->max_rate) > > > > + return nkm->max_rate; > > > > + > > > > > > I would expect the test to be the same for the minimum and maximum cases. > > > > I don't have proper use-case for max rate test, I do verify by using > > higher the rate on dclock, but nor sure. May be I can skip the > > max_rate patch? > > So you're sending more patches that you haven't really tested? I didn't understand this question. > Why are you sending them then? I think I've mentioned in the first version patch itself, since it's common code and many other callers might have used for rate alternative I did it how other ccu dividers does. I have not added just as simple. > > > Apart from this, any idea about this issue where SUN4I_TCON0_DCLK_REG > > will only work with div upto 6 on A64 DSI panels[1], did you find the > > same issue on A33? > > IIRC my panel was falling into the case where the divider was 4, so > I've not fallen into that case. OK, thanks. _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
