Hi Laurent, On Mon, Dec 05, 2016 at 10:46:43AM +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > Hi Ladislav, > > On Monday 05 Dec 2016 09:22:10 Ladislav Michl wrote: [snip] > > Table 36 list two options with 26MHz clocks: m=443, n=11 and m=480, n=12 > > with a statement: "The choice between these two options with a 26 MHz input > > should be based on characterization on the end system." > > > > Shall we care about that? > > I'd like to, but at the moment I don't see how. Proposals are welcome :-) I One of proposals raised earlier was DT property, but that idea was scratched later. > don't think addressing that issue should be a blocker to get this patch merged > though. Of course not. I'd like to even see it in stable ;-) [snip] > I had tried that, but I find the code less readable :-S Oh... Please reconsider (I really do not like that extra test and extra assignment to local variables (also I had 'precomputed' as mixed definition, but Tero did not quite like that)) :-) Also, checked if the same values are written to clk as with my patch, so here's my: Tested-by: Ladislav Michl <ladis@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Best regards, ladis -- 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
