lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2011]   [Dec]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v3 3/5] clk: introduce the common clock framework
On Mon, Dec 05, 2011 at 02:15:56PM -0700, Paul Walmsley wrote:
> The types associated with clock rates in the clock interface
> (include/linux/clk.h) are inconsistent, and we should fix this.

Rubbish. They're different with good reason. Rates are primerily
unsigned quantities - and should be treated as such.

The exception is clk_round_rate() which returns the rate, but also
_may_ return an error. Therefore, its return type has to be signed.

> We could fix the immediate problem by changing the prototype of
> clk_round_rate() to pass the rounded rate back to the caller via a pointer
> in one of the arguments, and return an error code (if any) via the return
> value:
>
> int clk_round_rate(struct clk *clk, unsigned long rate, unsigned long
> *rounded_rate);

Yes that might have been a better solution.

> But I'd propose that we instead increase the size of struct clk.rate to be
> s64:
>
> s64 clk_round_rate(struct clk *clk, s64 desired_rate);
> int clk_set_rate(struct clk *clk, s64 rate);
> s64 clk_get_rate(struct clk *clk);
>
> struct clk {
> ...
> s64 rate;
> ...
> };
>
> That way the clock framework can accommodate current clock rates, as well
> as any conceivable future clock rate. (Some production CPUs are already
> running at clock rates greater than 4 GiHZ[1]. RF devices with 4 GiHz+
> clock rates are also common, such as 802.11a devices running in the 5.8
> GHz band, and drivers for those may eventually wish to use the clock
> framework.)

Yuck. You are aware that 64-bit math on 32-bit CPUs sucks? So burdening
_everything_ with 64-bit rate quantities is absurd. As for making then
64-bit signed quantities, that's asking for horrid code from gcc for the
majority of cases.


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2011-12-06 00:51    [W:0.163 / U:0.072 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site