Re: [PATCH v3 08/18] phy: ti: phy-j721e-wiz: split wiz_clock_init() function

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 24/02/16 11:32AM, Vinod Koul wrote:
> On 15-02-24, 17:43, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 15, 2024 at 04:17:53PM +0100, Thomas Richard wrote:
> > > The wiz_clock_init() function mixes probe and hardware configuration.
> > > Rename the wiz_clock_init() to wiz_clock_probe() and move the hardware
> > > configuration part in a new function named wiz_clock_init().
> > > 
> > > This hardware configuration sequence must be called during the resume
> > > stage of the driver.
> > 
> > ...
> > 
> > (Side note, as this can be done later)
> > 
> > >  	if (rate >= 100000000)
> > 
> > > +		if (rate >= 100000000)
> > 
> > > +	if (rate >= 100000000)
> > 
> > I would make local definition and use it, we may get the global one as there
> > are users.
> > 
> > #define HZ_PER_GHZ	1000000000UL
> 
> Better to define as:
> #define HZ_PER_GHZ 1 * GIGA

The variable "rate" is being compared against 100 MHz and not 1 GHz.
The driver already has the following macros defined:
#define REF_CLK_19_2MHZ         19200000
#define REF_CLK_25MHZ           25000000
#define REF_CLK_100MHZ          100000000
#define REF_CLK_156_25MHZ       156250000

So would it be acceptable to change it to:
	if (rate >= REF_CLK_100MHZ)
instead?

Regards,
Siddharth.




[Index of Archives]     [Linux SPI]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux ARM (vger)]     [Linux ARM MSM]     [Linux Omap]     [Linux Arm]     [Linux Tegra]     [Fedora ARM]     [Linux for Samsung SOC]     [eCos]     [Linux Fastboot]     [Gcc Help]     [Git]     [DCCP]     [IETF Announce]     [Security]     [Linux MIPS]     [Yosemite Campsites]

  Powered by Linux