[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190923091745.ehvz4zi2riyanmug@pengutronix.de>
Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2019 11:17:45 +0200
From: Uwe Kleine-König
<u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>
To: Rasmus Villemoes <linux@...musvillemoes.dk>,
Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>
Cc: Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>,
Shawn Guo <shawnguo@...nel.org>,
Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@...gutronix.de>,
Pengutronix Kernel Team <kernel@...gutronix.de>,
Fabio Estevam <festevam@...il.com>,
NXP Linux Team <linux-imx@....com>,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-pwm@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-clk@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] pwm: mxs: implement ->apply
Hello,
[expanded the recipents to include RMK and the clk list]
On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 11:04:39AM +0200, Rasmus Villemoes wrote:
> On 23/09/2019 10.24, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> > Also there is a bug already in .config: You are not supposed to call
> > clk_get_rate if the clk might be off.
>
> Interesting, I didn't know that. So the prepare_enable logic needs to be
> moved before we start computing the period/duty cycles. Do you know why
> it has apparently worked so far? I would have thought such a rule would
> be enforced by the clock framework, or at least produced a warning.
FTR: This is documented in the kerneldoc code comment to clk_get_rate in
include/linux/clk.h.
Assuming this is relevant, it might indeed make sense to add a
WARN_ONCE for this.
Best regards
Uwe
--
Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-König |
Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ |
Powered by blists - more mailing lists