On 03/23/2012 02:39 PM, Turquette, Mike wrote:

On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 2:33 PM, Saravana Kannan[off-list ref]  wrote:

quoted

On 03/20/2012 08:10 PM, Saravana Kannan wrote:

quoted

On 03/20/2012 04:53 PM, Turquette, Mike wrote:

quoted

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

-- 
Sent by an employee of the Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc.
The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum.