On Thu, Apr 13, 2023 at 02:44:51PM -0700, Stephen Boyd wrote: > Quoting Maxime Ripard (2023-04-04 03:10:50) > > Hi, > > > > This is a follow-up to a previous series that was printing a warning > > when a mux has a set_parent implementation but is missing > > determine_rate(). > > > > The rationale is that set_parent() is very likely to be useful when > > changing the rate, but it's determine_rate() that takes the parenting > > decision. If we're missing it, then the current parent is always going > > to be used, and thus set_parent() will not be used. The only exception > > being a direct call to clk_set_parent(), but those are fairly rare > > compared to clk_set_rate(). > > > > Stephen then asked to promote the warning to an error, and to fix up all > > the muxes that are in that situation first. So here it is :) > > > > Thanks for resending. > > I was thinking that we apply this patch first and then set > determine_rate clk_ops without setting the clk flag. The function name > is up for debate. Ack, I'll send a new version following your proposal Maxime
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
