On 10/10/16 10:56, RadosÅaw Pietrzyk wrote:
all plls have the same clock parent which is after a main divider.
Currently the divider and multiplier are connected together within vco
clock and therefore there is no chance to reuse the divider and clearly
state where the conncetion "really" is. We can arrange all of them
separately but than the divider will be hidden for all of them
Quoting my last mail "I can see the value of naming the "/M"
pre-division separately". In other words I agree with the idea of the
To more explicitly state my review comments...
From: Radoslaw Pietrzyk <radoslaw.pietrzyk@xxxxxxxxx>
Please add a explanation of the problem and solution in the patch
Signed-off-by: Radoslaw Pietrzyk <radoslaw.pietrzyk@xxxxxxxxx>*hse_clk, const char *hsi_clk)
drivers/clk/clk-stm32f4.c | 7 ++++---
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/clk/clk-stm32f4.c b/drivers/clk/clk-stm32f4.c
index 02d6810..1fd3eac 100644
@@ -245,9 +245,10 @@ static void stm32f4_rcc_register_pll(const char
const char *pllsrc = pllcfgr & BIT(22) ? hse_clk : hsi_clk;
unsigned long pllq = (pllcfgr >> 24) & 0xf;
- clk_register_fixed_factor(NULL, "vco", pllsrc, 0, plln, pllm);
- clk_register_fixed_factor(NULL, "pll", "vco", 0, 1, pllp);
- clk_register_fixed_factor(NULL, "pll48", "vco", 0, 1, pllq);
+ clk_register_fixed_factor(NULL, "vco-div", pllsrc, 0, 1, pllm);
This strikes me as a bad name for a clock that is shared by all three
PLLs (the vco being an internal component of the PLL) however since the
clock is not named in the datasheet we are forced to invent a name [I
suspect that's why I gave up trying to name it when I wrote the driver
originally ;-) ].
+ clk_register_fixed_factor(NULL, "vco-mul", "vco-div", 0, plln, 1);
Why rename this clock? Multiplying is a what the vco (and its control
circuits) is *for*. Tagging it "-mul" is meaningless.