On 5/4/2015 7:01 PM, Benson Leung wrote:
> On Mon, May 4, 2015 at 9:37 AM, Rhyland Klein <rklein@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> @@ -495,6 +505,28 @@ static int _calc_rate(struct clk_hw *hw, struct tegra_clk_pll_freq_table *cfg,
>> return 0;
>> }
>>
>> +static void clk_pll_set_sdm_data(struct clk_hw *hw,
>> + struct tegra_clk_pll_freq_table *cfg)
>> +{
>> + struct tegra_clk_pll *pll = to_clk_pll(hw);
>> + u32 val;
>> +
>> + if (!pll->params->sdm_din_reg)
>> + return;
>> +
>> + if (cfg->sdm_data) {
>> + val = pll_readl_sdm_din(pll) & (~sdm_din_mask(pll));
>> + val |= sdin_data_to_din(cfg->sdm_data) & sdm_din_mask(pll);
>> + pll_writel_sdm_din(val, pll);
>> + }
>> +
>> + val = pll_readl_sdm_ctrl(pll);
>> + if (!cfg->sdm_data != !(val & pll->params->sdm_ctrl_en_mask)) {
>
> You can use sdm_en_mask(pll) here.
>
> I'm not super clear about what you're trying to accomplish here with
> !cfg->sdm_data != !(val & mask).
> Are you just checking if the masked value is different from sdm_data,
> but accounting for the integer widths being different (u16 vs u32)?
So I got clarification from the downstream author to be sure, and this
is the answer to what this is checking:
(<Configuration has non zero SDM_DATA> AND <sdm control is disabled>)
OR
(<Configuration has zero SDM_DATA> AND <sdm control is enabled>)
So the check is correct, just a complicated way of expressing it.
-rhyland
--
nvpublic
--
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
