Subject: [PATCH RFC v9 01/20] clk: divider: Correct parent clk round rate if no bestdiv is normally found

From: [email-masked] (Tomi Valkeinen)
Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2015 16:35:36 +0200

On 12/02/15 15:41, Sascha Hauer wrote:

> Tomis patch is based on the assumption that clk_set_rate(clk_round_rate(rate))
> is equal to clk_round_rate(rate). So when this assumption is wrong then
> it should simply be reverted.

When is it not equal?

I agree that doing clk_set_rate(clk, clk_round_rate(clk, rate)) is
pointless, but shouldn't it still work?

And we can forget about clk_round_rate. Without my patch, this would
behave oddly also:

rate = clk_get_rate(clk);
clk_set_rate(clk, rate);

The end result could be something else than 'rate'.

 Tomi

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/attachments/20150213/50a7ea41/attachment.sig>