On 03/23/2012 02:39 PM, Turquette, Mike wrote:
On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 2:33 PM, Saravana Kannanskannan@codeaurora.org wrote:
On 03/20/2012 08:10 PM, Saravana Kannan wrote:
On 03/20/2012 04:53 PM, Turquette, Mike wrote:
It does make me wonder if it would be a good idea to pass in the parent rate for .set_parent, which is analogous to .set_rate in many ways.
I need to think a bit more about this.
I was thinking about this. I think the common clock fwk should let the set_parent ops "return" the rate of the clock in addition to passing the rate of the parent in.
Say this is a divider clock and some one changes the parent. The cached "rate" of the clock in the clock fwk is no longer correct. So, the clock fwk should also add a "*new_rate" param to set parent ops.
__clk_recalc_rates is called by __clk_reparent which is called by clk_set_parent. __clk_recalc_rates is also called by clk_set_rate.
Does this not handle the old cached clk->rate for you?
Yeah, I realized this just after I sent the email. I'm looking at the code to see if that's sufficient or not. Will get back soon.
-Saravana