On 02/01/18 19:01, Stephen Boyd wrote:
On 12/31, Bryan O'Donoghue wrote:
On 30/12/17 16:36, Mikko Perttunen wrote:
FWIW, we had this problem some years ago with the Tegra CPU clock
- then it was determined that a simpler solution was to have the
determine_rate callback support unsigned long rates - so clock
drivers that need to return rates higher than 2^31 can instead
implement the determine_rate callback. That is what's currently
implemented.
Mikko
Granted we could work around it but, having both zero and less than
zero indicate error means you can't support larger than LONG_MAX
which is I think worth fixing.
Ok. But can you implement the determine_rate op instead of the
round_rate op for your clk?
Don't know .
It's not a work-around, it's the
preferred solution. That would allow rates larger than 2^31 for
the clk without pushing through a change to all the drivers to
express zero as "error" and non-zero as the rounded rate.
I'm not entirely opposed to this approach, because we probably
don't care to pass the particular error value from a clk provider
to a clk consumer about what the error is.
Which was my thought. The return value of clk_ops->round_rate() appears
not to get pushed up the stack, which is what the last patch in this
series deals with.
[PATCH 33/33] clk: change handling of round_rate() such that only zero
is an error
It's actually what we
proposed as the solution for clk_round_rate() to return values
larger than LONG_MAX to consumers. But doing that consumer API
change or this provider side change is going to require us to
evaluate all the consumers of these clks to make sure they don't
check for some error value that's less than zero. This series
does half the work,
Do you mean users of clk_rounda_rate() ? I have a set of patches for
that but wanted to separate that from clk_ops->round_rate() so as not to
send ~70 patches out to LKML at once - even if they are in two blocks.
If so, I can publish that set too for reference.
AFAICT on clk_ops->round_rate the last patch #33 ought to cover the
usage of the return value of clk_ops->round_rate().
Have I missed something ?
by changing the provider side, while ignoring
the consumer side and any potential fallout of the less than zero
to zero return value change.
Can you look at #33 ? I'm not sure if you saw that one.
---
bod
