[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAGb2v64fxs5Ne5=orQxNcg70Z_N0NJyyC7MPuNH6pxcqrsUq4g@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2018 17:43:01 +0800
From: Chen-Yu Tsai <wens@...e.org>
To: Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@...tlin.com>
Cc: Jernej Skrabec <jernej.skrabec@...l.net>,
David Airlie <airlied@...ux.ie>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Mike Turquette <mturquette@...libre.com>,
Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>,
dri-devel <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
devicetree <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-arm-kernel <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-clk <linux-clk@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-sunxi <linux-sunxi@...glegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/15] clk: sunxi-ng: Add check for minimal rate to NM PLLs
On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 5:38 PM, Maxime Ripard
<maxime.ripard@...tlin.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Sat, Feb 24, 2018 at 10:45:31PM +0100, Jernej Skrabec wrote:
>> Some NM PLLs doesn't work well when their output clock rate is set below
>> certain rate.
>>
>> Add support for that constrain.
>
> In such a case, you should round the rate to the minimum the clock can
> operate at, and not return an error.
That's true for round_rate. But what's the expected behavior of set_rate?
AFAIK we presume all users call round_rate before set_rate, but that doesn't
seem to be true all the time.
ChenYu
Powered by blists - more mailing lists