[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <53731BB3.4060504@free-electrons.com>
Date: Wed, 14 May 2014 09:30:59 +0200
From: Boris BREZILLON <boris.brezillon@...e-electrons.com>
To: Mike Turquette <mturquette@...aro.org>,
Emilio López <emilio@...pez.com.ar>,
Samuel Ortiz <sameo@...ux.intel.com>,
Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>
CC: Chen-Yu Tsai <wens@...e.org>,
Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@...e-electrons.com>,
Philipp Zabel <p.zabel@...gutronix.de>,
Shuge <shuge@...winnertech.com>, kevin@...winnertech.com,
Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com>,
Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
dev@...ux-sunxi.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 5/7] clk: sunxi: add PRCM (Power/Reset/Clock Management)
clks support
Hello Mike,
On 14/05/2014 02:51, Mike Turquette wrote:
> Quoting Boris BREZILLON (2014-05-09 04:11:49)
>> +struct clk_ops ar100_ops = {
>> + .recalc_rate = ar100_recalc_rate,
>> + .determine_rate = ar100_determine_rate,
>> + .set_parent = ar100_set_parent,
>> + .get_parent = ar100_get_parent,
>> + .set_rate = ar100_set_rate,
>> +};
> I might be having a brain fart, but is there a valid case for having
> both a .recalc_rate and a .determine_rate? I believe that the former
> will never be used and the latter will always be used by the clock
> framework core.
I think you're mistaking recalc_rate for round_rate.
AFAIK, recalc_rate is mandatory for a clk that implement either
round_rate or determine_rate.
Best Regards,
Boris
--
Boris Brezillon, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
http://free-electrons.com
--
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