On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 04:35:36PM +0200, Tomi Valkeinen wrote:
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'.
I agree that it's a bit odd, but I think it has to be like this. Consider that you request a rate of 100Hz, but the clock can only produce 99.5Hz, so due to rounding clk_round_rate() returns 99Hz. Now when you request 99Hz from clk_set_rate() the 99.5Hz value can't be used because it's too high.
Sascha