[lkml]   [2015]   [Apr]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH] clk: at91: pll: fix input range validity check
Hi Mike,

On Sun, 12 Apr 2015 21:37:25 -0700
Michael Turquette <> wrote:

> Quoting Boris Brezillon (2015-03-28 18:53:43)
> > The PLL impose a certain input range to work correctly, but it appears that
> > this input range does not apply on the input clock (or parent clock) but
> > on the input clock after it has passed the PLL divisor.
> > Fix the implementation accordingly.
> >
> > Cc: <> # v3.14+
> > Signed-off-by: Boris Brezillon <>
> > Reported-by: Jonas Andersson <>
> Hi Boris,
> OK, so this patch along with your two previous submissions kind of
> tackle some of items I mentioned earlier today[0].
> Does this patch, combined with your two prior patches[1][2] resolve the
> issue you brought up in your "Propagating clock rate constraints"
> thread[3]?

Unfortunately it doesn't (though it does resolve one of my
issues, so I definitely need that patch :-)).

Take the following case:
1/ clock X takes clock Y as its parent (let's say clock X is a clock
2/ user U claims clock X and configure X's rate (X then propagates
rate change to Y) and assign a specific supported rate range to X
2/ user V claims clock Y and sets a specific rate

As of today, the constraint U has set on clock X is not propagated to
clock Y, which means user V might configure a rate that is not
fulfilling users V constraint, and the clk infrastructure won't
complain (actually it won't detect it).

Here's what I would expect: if a (MIN -> MAX) constraint is set on clock
X the (MIN * XDIV -> MAX * XDIV) constraint should be propagated to
clock Y.

Am I wrong ?

Best Regards,

Boris Brezillon, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering

 \ /
  Last update: 2015-04-14 20:01    [W:0.083 / U:6.984 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site