Hi On Fri, 25 Jan 2013, Mohammed, Afzal wrote: > 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. Hmm. Maybe I need to take a closer look. I'm a little worried that, since __clk_round_rate() can be called from omap3_noncore_dpll_set_rate(), we might wind up with inconsistent behavior. Effectively we'd need to mandate that clk_round_rate() would have to be called first for any DPLL where we'd expect to set an exact rate. - 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
