On 12/18/2012 02:19 AM, Lucas Stach wrote: > Am Dienstag, den 18.12.2012, 16:36 +0800 schrieb Mark Zhang: >> I think we don't need to define a pll_ops for every individual pll. >> That'll be redundant. Just use one pll_ops(with parameter dynamically >> calculating) which is able to serve several plls is OK. Refer to >> tegra30_clocks_data.c, it has already implemented this. >> > This would be the right thing to do in the long run. But PLL_D requires > a lot less complexity than others to compute the PLL values, because of > the constraints that could be applied. That's why I started doing a > simple function to only make PLL_D dynamic. > > I could certainly go ahead and come up with something which applies to > all PLLs, but I imagine this might be even a bigger validation hassle > for NVidia. > > Also I'm still not sure how much this patch collides with the clock > rework. I don't know how far this rework has progressed already and I > would like to avoid doing redundant work. Prashant could you please > clarify? The code is moved to drivers/clk/tegra/, and split up into per-clock-type files, rather than a single monolithic clock type. There's basically zero possibility to merge anything across that transition; a patch would need to be rebased (well, more like manually re-written) to be applicable. I hope it won't be more than a day or two before Prashant posts his patches... -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-tegra" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
