On Tue, March 20, 2012 7:02 am, Shawn Guo wrote:
On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 11:11:19PM -0700, Mike Turquette wrote: ...
+struct clk_ops {
- int (*prepare)(struct clk_hw *hw);
- void (*unprepare)(struct clk_hw *hw);
- int (*enable)(struct clk_hw *hw);
- void (*disable)(struct clk_hw *hw);
- int (*is_enabled)(struct clk_hw *hw);
- unsigned long (*recalc_rate)(struct clk_hw *hw,
unsigned long parent_rate);I believe I have heard people love the interface with parent_rate passed in. I love that too. But I would like to ask the same thing on .round_rate and .set_rate as well for the same reason why we have it for .recalc_rate.
In my case, for most clocks, set rate involves reparenting. So, what does passing parent_rate for these even mean? Passing parent_rate seems more apt for recalc_rate since it's called when the parent rate changes -- so, the actual parent itself is not expected to change.
I could ignore the parameter, but just wondering how many of the others see value in this. And if we do add this parameter, it shouldn't be made mandatory for the platform driver to use it (due to other assumptions the clock framework might make).
-Saravana