Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 24 Jul 2023 15:19:38 +0200 | From | Maxime Ripard <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v4 08/11] clk: sunxi-ng: nkm: Support finding closest rate |
| |
On Sun, Jul 23, 2023 at 09:25:10AM +0200, Frank Oltmanns wrote: > On 2023-07-17 at 16:14:58 +0200, Maxime Ripard <mripard@kernel.org> wrote: > > [[PGP Signed Part:Undecided]] > > On Mon, Jul 17, 2023 at 03:34:32PM +0200, Frank Oltmanns wrote: > >> When finding the best rate for a NKM clock, consider rates that are > >> higher than the requested rate, if the CCU_FEATURE_CLOSEST_RATE flag is > >> set by using the helper function ccu_is_better_rate(). > >> > >> Accommodate ccu_mux_helper_determine_rate to this change. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Frank Oltmanns <frank@oltmanns.dev> > >> --- > >> drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_mux.c | 2 +- > >> drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_nkm.c | 18 ++++++++---------- > >> 2 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-) > >> > >> diff --git a/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_mux.c b/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_mux.c > >> index 1d557e323169..3ca695439620 100644 > >> --- a/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_mux.c > >> +++ b/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_mux.c > >> @@ -139,7 +139,7 @@ int ccu_mux_helper_determine_rate(struct ccu_common *common, > >> goto out; > >> } > >> > >> - if ((req->rate - tmp_rate) < (req->rate - best_rate)) { > >> + if (ccu_is_better_rate(common, req->rate, tmp_rate, best_rate)) { > >> best_rate = tmp_rate; > >> best_parent_rate = parent_rate; > >> best_parent = parent; > >> diff --git a/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_nkm.c b/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_nkm.c > >> index 793160bc2d47..5439b9351cd7 100644 > >> --- a/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_nkm.c > >> +++ b/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_nkm.c > >> @@ -39,6 +39,7 @@ static unsigned long ccu_nkm_optimal_parent_rate(unsigned long rate, unsigned lo > >> } > >> > >> static unsigned long ccu_nkm_find_best_with_parent_adj(struct clk_hw *phw, struct _ccu_nkm *nkm, > >> + struct ccu_common *common, > >> unsigned long *parent, unsigned long rate) > >> { > >> unsigned long best_rate = 0, best_parent_rate = *parent, tmp_parent = *parent; > >> @@ -54,10 +55,8 @@ static unsigned long ccu_nkm_find_best_with_parent_adj(struct clk_hw *phw, struc > >> tmp_parent = clk_hw_round_rate(phw, tmp_parent); > >> > >> tmp_rate = tmp_parent * _n * _k / _m; > >> - if (tmp_rate > rate) > >> - continue; > >> > >> - if ((rate - tmp_rate) < (rate - best_rate)) { > >> + if (ccu_is_better_rate(common, rate, tmp_rate, best_rate)) { > >> best_rate = tmp_rate; > >> best_parent_rate = tmp_parent; > >> best_n = _n; > >> @@ -78,7 +77,7 @@ static unsigned long ccu_nkm_find_best_with_parent_adj(struct clk_hw *phw, struc > >> } > >> > >> static unsigned long ccu_nkm_find_best(unsigned long parent, unsigned long rate, > >> - struct _ccu_nkm *nkm) > >> + struct _ccu_nkm *nkm, struct ccu_common *common) > > > > Same comment than on patch 7, common should be first in those two functions. > > > > Ok, I wasn't sure what your expectation is for existing functions. For > ccu_find_best_with_parent_adj the order is: > 1. *phw > 2. *nkm > 3. *common > 4. *parent > 5. rate
Arguments are generally ordered by putting first what the function will act upon, and then from generic to specific, and output last.
Which I guess would make the ideal one something like: *common *parent_hw *parent rate nkm
> We don't have the parent hw in ccu_nkm_find_best. The order prior to > this patch is: > 1. parent > 2. rate > 3. *nkm > > We need to add *common to that, so I could add it to the beginning as > per your suggestion: > 1. *common > 2. parent > 3. rate > 4. *nkm
Those two make sense to me
> I could also pull *nkm to the beginning (similar to the parent_adj > version): > 4. *nkm > 1. *common > 2. parent > 3. rate
nkm is an output, it needs to be last.
Maxime [unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature] | |