Quoting Geert Uytterhoeven (2019-09-03 23:51:10) > Hi Stephen, > > On Wed, Sep 4, 2019 at 12:09 AM Stephen Boyd <sboyd@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Quoting Geert Uytterhoeven (2019-08-30 06:45:07) > > > As the .round_rate() callback returns a long clock rate, it cannot > > > return clock rates that do not fit in signed long, but do fit in > > > unsigned long. The newer .determine_rate() callback does not suffer > > > from this limitation. In addition, .determine_rate() provides the > > > ability to specify a rate range. > > > > > > This patch series performs the customary preparatory cleanups, and > > > switches the Z (CPU) and SD clocks in the R-Car Gen2 and Gen3 clock > > > drivers from the .round_rate() to the .determine_rate() callback. > > > Note that the "div6" clock driver hasn't been converted yet, so div6 > > > clocks still use .round_rate(). > > > > > > Changes compared to v1[1]: > > > - Add preparatory arithmetic division improvements > > > - Split off cpg_sd_clock_calc_div() absorption and SD clock best rate > > > calculation, > > > - Use div_u64() for division by unsigned long, > > > > > > This has been tested on R-Car M2-W and various R-Car Gen3, and should > > > have no behavioral impact. > > > > From what I recall the rate range code is broken but I can't remember > > how. Anyway, I was just curious if you ran into any issues with that > > code. > > I didn't ran into any issues. But please note that in all tested cases, the > limits were 0 and ULONG_MAX anyway, so probably it didn't trigger the > broken cases in the rate range code. > > So, is it good to have .determine_rate() support in individual clock drivers > now, or do you want me to postpone the last 3 patches of my series until the > rate range code is fixed? > It's fine to use .determine_rate() because we'll fix the problems in the clk framework. So no concern from me here. Just curious if you ran into any problems.
