Hi Stephen,
On Tue, Mar 07, 2017 at 06:11:57AM -0800, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> On 03/07, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> > So far, divider_round_rate only considers the parent clock returned by
> > clk_hw_get_parent.
> >
> > This works fine on clocks that have a single parents, this doesn't work on
> > muxes, since we will only consider the first parent, while other parents
> > may totally be able to provide a better combination.
> >
> > Clocks in that case cannot use divider_round_rate, so would have to come up
> > with a very similar logic to work around it. Instead of having to do
> > something like this, and duplicate that logic everywhere, give an
> > additional parameter for the parent clock to consider.
> >
> > Current users have been converted using the following coccinelle script
> >
> > @@
> > identifier hw, rate, prate, table, width, flags;
> > @@
> >
> > -long divider_round_rate(struct clk_hw *hw,
> > +long divider_round_rate(struct clk_hw *hw, struct clk_hw *parent,
> > unsigned long rate,
> > unsigned long *prate,
> > const struct clk_div_table *table,
> > u8 width,
> > unsigned long flags) { ... }
> >
> > @@
> > identifier fn, hw;
> > expression E2, E3, E4, E5, E6;
> > @@
> > fn (struct clk_hw *hw, ...) {
> > <...
> > -divider_round_rate(hw, E2, E3, E4, E5, E6)
> > +divider_round_rate(hw, clk_hw_get_parent(hw), E2, E3, E4, E5, E6)
> > ...>
> > }
>
> Why not introduce another function like
>
> divider_round_rate_parent()
> divider_round_rate_mux()
>
> that takes the extra parent argument? Technically, a divider is
> considered to only have one parent, and if it has more than one
> parent, then it is a mux and a divider.
Yes, that would work too, without needing the cross tree change. I'll
do that in the next version.
Thanks!
Maxime
--
Maxime Ripard, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
http://free-electrons.com
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
