Re: [PATCH 0/3] clk: divider: three exactness fixes (and a rant)

From: Sascha Hauer
Date: Mon Feb 23 2015 - 02:23:17 EST

On Sat, Feb 21, 2015 at 11:40:22AM +0100, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> Hello,
> TLDR: only apply patch 1 and rip of CLK_DIVIDER_ROUND_CLOSEST.
> I stared at clk-divider.c for some time now given Sascha's failing test
> case. I found a fix for the failure (which happens to be what Sascha
> suspected).
> The other two patches fix problems only present when handling dividers
> that have CLK_DIVIDER_ROUND_CLOSEST set. Note that these are still
> heavily broken however. So having a 4bit-divider and a parent clk of
> 10000 (as in Sascha's test case) requesting
> clk_set_rate(clk, 666)
> sets the rate to 625 (div=15) instead of 667 (div=16). The reason is the
> choice of parent_rate in clk_divider_bestdiv's loop is wrong for
> CLK_DIVIDER_ROUND_CLOSEST (with and without patch 1). A fix here is
> non-trivial and for sure more than one rate must be tested here. This is
> complicated by the fact that clk_round_rate might return a value bigger
> than the requested rate which convinces me (once more) that it's a bad
> idea to allow that. Even if this was fixed for .round_rate,
> clk_divider_set_rate is still broken because it also uses
> div = DIV_ROUND_UP(parent_rate, rate);
> to calculate the (pretended) best divider to get near rate.
> Note this makes at least two reasons to remove support for
> Instead I'd favour creating a function
> clk_round_rate_nearest

Full ack. It's a clock consumer who wants to decide the rounding
strategy, not the clock itself and for sure not a specific entity of the
clock tree. CLK_DIVIDER_ROUND_CLOSEST should be dropped.


Pengutronix e.K. | |
Industrial Linux Solutions | |
Peiner Str. 6-8, 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0 |
Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 |
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at