Re: [PATCH RFC v9 01/20] clk: divider: Correct parent clk round rate if no bestdiv is normally found
From: Tomi Valkeinen
Date: Fri Feb 13 2015 - 09:36:45 EST
On 12/02/15 15:41, Sascha Hauer wrote:
> Tomis patch is based on the assumption that clk_set_rate(clk_round_rate(rate))
> is equal to clk_round_rate(rate). So when this assumption is wrong then
> it should simply be reverted.
When is it not equal?
I agree that doing clk_set_rate(clk, clk_round_rate(clk, rate)) is
pointless, but shouldn't it still work?
And we can forget about clk_round_rate. Without my patch, this would
behave oddly also:
rate = clk_get_rate(clk);
clk_set_rate(clk, rate);
The end result could be something else than 'rate'.
Tomi
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature