Quoting Stefan Wahren (2022-09-14 10:45:48)yes
Am 14.09.22 um 17:50 schrieb Stephen Boyd:Instead of 'all' did you mean 'any'?
Furthermore, I wonder if even that part needs to be implemented. Whyit would be nice to keep all the Rpi specific stuff out of the DRM
not make a direct call to rpi_firmware_property() and get the max rate?
All of that can live in the drm driver. Making it a generic API that
takes a 'struct clk' means that it looks like any clk can be passed,
when that isn't true. It would be better to restrict it to the one use
case so that the scope of the problem doesn't grow. I understand that it
duplicates a few lines of code, but that looks like a fair tradeoff vs.
exposing an API that can be used for other clks in the future.
driver, since there more users of it.