Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 23 Mar 2012 14:51:20 -0700 | From | Saravana Kannan <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v7 2/3] clk: introduce the common clock framework |
| |
On 03/23/2012 02:39 PM, Turquette, Mike wrote: > On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 2:33 PM, Saravana Kannan<skannan@codeaurora.org> wrote: >> On 03/20/2012 08:10 PM, Saravana Kannan wrote: >>> >>> On 03/20/2012 04:53 PM, Turquette, Mike wrote: >>>> >>>> It does make me >>>> wonder if it would be a good idea to pass in the parent rate for >>>> .set_parent, which is analogous to .set_rate in many ways. >>> >>> >>> I need to think a bit more about this. >> >> >> I was thinking about this. I think the common clock fwk should let the >> set_parent ops "return" the rate of the clock in addition to passing the >> rate of the parent in. >> >> Say this is a divider clock and some one changes the parent. The cached >> "rate" of the clock in the clock fwk is no longer correct. So, the clock fwk >> should also add a "*new_rate" param to set parent ops. > > __clk_recalc_rates is called by __clk_reparent which is called by > clk_set_parent. __clk_recalc_rates is also called by clk_set_rate. > > Does this not handle the old cached clk->rate for you? >
Yeah, I realized this just after I sent the email. I'm looking at the code to see if that's sufficient or not. Will get back soon.
-Saravana
-- Sent by an employee of the Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum.
| |