linux-kernel - Re: RE: [PATCH v2 1/4] ARM: OMAP2+: dpll: round rate to closest value

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Fri, 25 Jan 2013 14:20:32 -0800
From:	Mike Turquette <mturquette@...aro.org>
To:	"Mohammed, Afzal" <afzal@...com>, Paul Walmsley <paul@...an.com>
Cc:	"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
	"linux-omap@...r.kernel.org" <linux-omap@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>,
	Russell King <linux@....linux.org.uk>
Subject: Re: RE: [PATCH v2 1/4] ARM: OMAP2+: dpll: round rate to closest value

Quoting Mohammed, Afzal (2013-01-25 04:18:22)
> Hi Paul,
> 
> On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 13:48:11, Paul Walmsley wrote:
> > On Wed, 23 Jan 2013, Afzal Mohammed wrote:
> 
> > > Currently round rate function would return proper rate iff requested
> > > rate exactly matches the PLL lockable rate. This causes set_rate to
> > > fail if exact rate could not be set. Instead round rate may return
> > > closest rate possible (less than the requested). And if any user is
> > > badly in need of exact rate, then return value of round rate could
> > > be used to decide whether to invoke set rate or not.
> > > 
> > > Modify round rate so that it return closest possible rate.
> > 
> > This doesn't look like the right approach to me.  For some PLLs, an exact 
> > rate is desired.
> 
> If exact rate is required, there is a way to achieve it as mentioned
> in the commit message, i.e. by first invoking round rate over reqd. rate
> and if it doesn't match, bail out w/o invoking set_rate.
> 
> And it seems requirement of CCF w.r.t to round rate is to return closest
> possible rate.

Is MULT_ROUND_UP doing the right thing for you in the clk_divider code?
What is the clock rate requested of the parent PLL?  I just want to make
sure that we're doing the right thing in the basic divider code.

Thanks,
Mike
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/