Hi Mike, Am Donnerstag, 22. Oktober 2015, 05:03:26 schrieb Michael Turquette: > Quoting Heiko Stuebner (2015-09-30 07:07:37) > > > From: Douglas Anderson <dianders at chromium.org> > > > > Because of the inexact nature of the extra MMC delay elements (it's > > not possible to keep the phase monotonic and to also make phases (mod > > 90) > 70), we previously only allowed phases (mod 90) of 22.5, 45, > > and 67.5. > > > > But it's not the end of the world if the MMC clock phase goes > > non-monotonic. At most we'll be 25 degrees off. It's way better to > > test more phases to look for bad ones than to be 25 degrees off, because > > in the case of MMC really the point is to find bad phases and get as far > > asway from the as possible. If we get to test extra phases by going > > slightly non-monotonic then that might be fine. Worst case we would > > end up at a phases that's slight differnt than the one we wanted, but > > at least we'd still be quite far away from the a bad phase. > > > > Signed-off-by: Douglas Anderson <dianders at chromium.org> > > > > Fold in more precise variance-values of 44-77 instead of 40-80. > > Fold in the actual removal of the monotonic requirement and adapt > > patch message accordingly. > > Signed-off-by: Heiko Stuebner <heiko at sntech.de> > > Looks good to me. What tree do you want this to go through? we got already an Ack from Stephen [in the thread of patch3] for the clock patches and they are already in the mmc.tree [0]. Heiko [0] https://git.linaro.org/people/ulf.hansson/mmc.git/commit/6cf04362a13de8cdb59b85b8dec1d53f90307dd1
