Hi Morimoto-san,
On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 10:37 AM, Kuninori Morimoto
<kuninori.morimoto.gx@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > +static const struct sh_mmcif_ver sh_mmcif_gen2 = {
>> > + .clkdiv_map = 0x3ff,
>> > + .pf_min = 12187500,
>> > + .pf_max = 97500000,
>>
>> By any chance, does setting "max-frequency = <97500000>" from the standard
>> MMC DT bindings have the same effect?
>
> I'm still not understanding about this.
> If we can specify SoC (via compatible), the clock frequency limitation
> can be specified in same time.
> Why do we need to have flexibility for it ?
It's better if you don't need to update the C source file for every new SoC,
especially if you can use a standard MMC DT property instead.
Still, you need it for clkdiv_map, right?
> What is yuur "any chance" mean ?
Just ignore those words.
Does setting "max-frequency = <97500000>" have the same effect as specifying
the parent clock upper limit in C?
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
-- Linus Torvalds
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-mmc" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
