Hi Dave,
On Wed, Oct 26, 2022 at 05:00:25PM +0100, Dave Stevenson wrote:
> > +
> > + node = rpi_firmware_find_node();
> > + if (!node)
> > + return -EINVAL;
> > +
> > + firmware = rpi_firmware_get(node);
> > + of_node_put(node);
> > + if (!firmware)
> > + return -EPROBE_DEFER;
> > +
> > hvs->core_clk = devm_clk_get(&pdev->dev, NULL);
> > if (IS_ERR(hvs->core_clk)) {
> > dev_err(&pdev->dev, "Couldn't get core clock\n");
> > return PTR_ERR(hvs->core_clk);
> > }
> >
> > + max_rate = rpi_firmware_clk_get_max_rate(firmware,
> > + RPI_FIRMWARE_CORE_CLK_ID);
> > + rpi_firmware_put(firmware);
> > + if (max_rate >= 550000000)
> > + hvs->vc5_hdmi_enable_scrambling = true;
> > +
> > + hvs->max_core_rate = max_rate;
>
> I was going to query the reason for storing this value, but it's used
> when we get to patch 7/7.
> I won't quibble about having it as an unused value for 2 patches.
Yeah, it felt natural to do it in that patch, even though it's indeed
only useful in a couple of patches.
Maxime
