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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Date:	Mon, 28 Jan 2013 09:25:41 +0000
From:	"Mohammed, Afzal" <afzal@...com>
To:	Mike Turquette <mturquette@...aro.org>,
	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

Hi Mike,

On Sat, Jan 26, 2013 at 03:50:32, Mike Turquette wrote:

> 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.

Actually MULT_ROUND_UP made my life difficult earlier, and finally came up
with this solution instead of removing it.

It was something like 60000000 requested of PLL, for i = 1, but for other
values, it was something like 60000001, 60000002 etc.

Even if round rate rounds, I thought removing MULT_ROUND_UP would be ok,
couldn't spend time to understand fully rational behind it, and as it was
in generic code, kept away from doing it.

Regards
Afzal