Hi
a brief comment concerning clock rates:
On Mon, 21 Nov 2011, Mike Turquette wrote:
> +unsigned long clk_get_rate(struct clk *clk)
...
> +long clk_round_rate(struct clk *clk, unsigned long rate)
...
> +int clk_set_rate(struct clk *clk, unsigned long rate)
...
> +struct clk {
...
> + unsigned long rate;
...
> +};
The types associated with clock rates in the clock interface
(include/linux/clk.h) are inconsistent, and we should fix this.
clk_round_rate() is the problematic case, returning a signed long rather
than an unsigned long. So clk_round_rate() won't work correctly with any
rates higher than 2 GiHz.
We could fix the immediate problem by changing the prototype of
clk_round_rate() to pass the rounded rate back to the caller via a pointer
in one of the arguments, and return an error code (if any) via the return
value:
int clk_round_rate(struct clk *clk, unsigned long rate, unsigned long
*rounded_rate);
But I'd propose that we instead increase the size of struct clk.rate to be
s64:
s64 clk_round_rate(struct clk *clk, s64 desired_rate);
int clk_set_rate(struct clk *clk, s64 rate);
s64 clk_get_rate(struct clk *clk);
struct clk {
...
s64 rate;
...
};
That way the clock framework can accommodate current clock rates, as well
as any conceivable future clock rate. (Some production CPUs are already
running at clock rates greater than 4 GiHZ[1]. RF devices with 4 GiHz+
clock rates are also common, such as 802.11a devices running in the 5.8
GHz band, and drivers for those may eventually wish to use the clock
framework.)
- Paul
1. www.cpu-world.com, "Intel Xeon X5698 - AT80614007314AA"
http://www.cpu-world.com/CPUs/Xeon/Intel-Xeon%20X5698%20-%20AT80614007314AA.html
--
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
