Hello Russell,
On Wed, 28 Jan 2009, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> Since it's been posted to lists, comments are going to be made...
Yes, that was the point.
> On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 07:12:47PM -0700, Paul Walmsley wrote:
> > + /*
> > + * According to the 12-5 CDP code from TI, "Limitation 2.5"
> > + * on 3430ES1 prevents us from changing DPLL multipliers or dividers
> > + * on DPLL4.
> > + */
> > + if (omap_rev() == OMAP3430_REV_ES1_0 &&
> > + !strcmp("dpll4_ck", clk->name)) {
> > + printk(KERN_ERR "clock: DPLL4 cannot change rate due to "
> > + "silicon 'Limitation 2.5' on 3430ES1.\n");
> > + return -EINVAL;
> > + }
>
> Yuck. That's revolting and extremely fragile. Don't play these games.
> You've got plenty of free flag bits in clk->flags which could be used to
> prevent the DPLL from being changed. You've also got other ways to
> prevent it - eg, setting dpll_data to NULL.
dpll_data is used for other DPLL register settings (such as autoidle and
mode setting), so we should probably leave dpll_data as-is. Your proposed
fix in your subsequent message sounds good (viz., adding a separate static
omap3_dpll4_set_rate() function).
> However, what's worse is that, below...
>
> > +static int omap3_noncore_dpll_set_rate(struct clk *clk, unsigned long rate)
> > +{
...
> > + omap3_noncore_dpll_program(clk, dd->last_rounded_m, dd->last_rounded_n,
> > + freqsel);
>
> The return value from the above test isn't checked, so this function
> will succeed even for dpll4_ck.
Indeed, the return value should be passed along to the caller. The
previous check does, however, prevent the DPLL4 registers from being
written on 3430ES1.
>From your subsequent message, it sounds like you've merged a version of
this patch with your proposed fixes. Please let me know if you'd
like me to send an updated version of this patch anyway.
- Paul
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
