Quoting Stefan Wahren (2022-09-14 10:45:48) > Am 14.09.22 um 17:50 schrieb Stephen Boyd: > > > > Furthermore, I wonder if even that part needs to be implemented. Why > > not make a direct call to rpi_firmware_property() and get the max rate? > > All of that can live in the drm driver. Making it a generic API that > > takes a 'struct clk' means that it looks like any clk can be passed, > > when that isn't true. It would be better to restrict it to the one use > > case so that the scope of the problem doesn't grow. I understand that it > > duplicates a few lines of code, but that looks like a fair tradeoff vs. > > exposing an API that can be used for other clks in the future. > it would be nice to keep all the Rpi specific stuff out of the DRM > driver, since there more users of it. Instead of 'all' did you mean 'any'?
