Why cannot max values be defined as ((2 ^ mnd_width) - 1) and ((2 ^ hid_width) - 1)? вт, 18 июн. 2024 г. в 22:12, Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@xxxxxxxxxx>: > > > > On 6/18/24 20:55, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 18, 2024 at 08:50:52PM GMT, Konrad Dybcio wrote: > >> > >> > >> On 6/18/24 19:50, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote: > >>> On Tue, Jun 18, 2024 at 04:59:36PM GMT, Dzmitry Sankouski wrote: > >>>> sdm845 has "General Purpose" clocks that can be muxed to > >>>> SoC pins. > >>>> > >>>> Those clocks may be used as e.g. PWM sources for external peripherals. > >>>> Add more frequencies to the table for those clocks so it's possible > >>>> for arbitrary peripherals to make use of them. > >>>> > >>>> See also: bf8bb8eaccf(clk: qcom: gcc-msm8916: Add rates to the GP clocks) > >>> > >>> Each time I look at the table attached to the GP CLK, I feel that it's > >>> plain wrong. In the end the GPCLK can in theory have arbitrary value > >>> depending on the usecase. > >>> > >>> Bjorn, Konrad, maybe we should add special clk_ops for GP CLK which > >>> allow more flexibility than a default clk_rcg2_ops? > >> > >> If we can somehow get max m/n/d values for all possible parents, sure > > > > Calculate them at runtime? > > We'd be calculating the mnd values for a frequency that's either equal or > reasonably close to the one requested. My worry is that we somehow need > to get the maximum values they can take (unless they're well-known) > > Konrad
