Hi Paul,
On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 13:48:11, Paul Walmsley wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Jan 2013, Afzal Mohammed wrote:
> > Currently round rate function would return proper rate iff requested
> > rate exactly matches the PLL lockable rate. This causes set_rate to
> > fail if exact rate could not be set. Instead round rate may return
> > closest rate possible (less than the requested). And if any user is
> > badly in need of exact rate, then return value of round rate could
> > be used to decide whether to invoke set rate or not.
> >
> > Modify round rate so that it return closest possible rate.
>
> This doesn't look like the right approach to me. For some PLLs, an exact
> rate is desired.
If exact rate is required, there is a way to achieve it as mentioned
in the commit message, i.e. by first invoking round rate over reqd. rate
and if it doesn't match, bail out w/o invoking set_rate.
And it seems requirement of CCF w.r.t to round rate is to return closest
possible rate.
> We removed the rate tolerance code in commit
> 241d3a8dca239610d3d991bf58d4fe38c2d86fd5, but that was probably premature.
> We've encountered several situations now where we could really use it,
> like MPU CPUFreq. I'd suggest reverting
> 241d3a8dca239610d3d991bf58d4fe38c2d86fd5 or using a similar approach.
As you prefer reverting the above commit, I will proceed so, hmm.. got
not so simple merge conflict, wish there was a command,
git revert logical ..
Regards
Afzal
��.n��������+%������w��{.n�����{�������ܨ}���Ơz�j:+v�����w����ޙ��&�)ߡ�a����z�ޗ���ݢj��w�f
