[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4F6CEC0C.4060704@codeaurora.org>
Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2012 14:33:00 -0700
From: Saravana Kannan <skannan@...eaurora.org>
To: "Turquette, Mike" <mturquette@...com>
CC: Shawn Guo <shawn.guo@...aro.org>, Paul Walmsley <paul@...an.com>,
Russell King <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...ricsson.com>,
patches@...aro.org, Magnus Damm <magnus.damm@...il.com>,
Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@...gutronix.de>,
Mark Brown <broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com>,
Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...eaurora.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linaro-dev@...ts.linaro.org,
Jeremy Kerr <jeremy.kerr@...onical.com>,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
Arnd Bergman <arnd.bergmann@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 2/3] clk: introduce the common clock framework
On 03/20/2012 08:10 PM, Saravana Kannan wrote:
> On 03/20/2012 04:53 PM, Turquette, Mike wrote:
>> It does make me
>> wonder if it would be a good idea to pass in the parent rate for
>> .set_parent, which is analogous to .set_rate in many ways.
>
> I need to think a bit more about this.
I was thinking about this. I think the common clock fwk should let the
set_parent ops "return" the rate of the clock in addition to passing the
rate of the parent in.
Say this is a divider clock and some one changes the parent. The cached
"rate" of the clock in the clock fwk is no longer correct. So, the clock
fwk should also add a "*new_rate" param to set parent ops.
Thanks,
Saravana
--
Sent by an employee of the Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc.
The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum.
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists