Hi Paul,

On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 13:48:11, Paul Walmsley wrote:

On Wed, 23 Jan 2013, Afzal Mohammed wrote:

quoted

Currently round rate function would return proper rate iff requested
rate exactly matches the PLL lockable rate. This causes set_rate to
fail if exact rate could not be set. Instead round rate may return
closest rate possible (less than the requested). And if any user is
badly in need of exact rate, then return value of round rate could
be used to decide whether to invoke set rate or not.

Modify round rate so that it return closest possible rate.

This doesn't look like the right approach to me.  For some PLLs, an exact 
rate is desired.

If exact rate is required, there is a way to achieve it as mentioned
in the commit message, i.e. by first invoking round rate over reqd. rate
and if it doesn't match, bail out w/o invoking set_rate.

And it seems requirement of CCF w.r.t to round rate is to return closest
possible rate.

We removed the rate tolerance code in commit 
241d3a8dca239610d3d991bf58d4fe38c2d86fd5, but that was probably premature.  
We've encountered several situations now where we could really use it, 
like MPU CPUFreq.  I'd suggest reverting 
241d3a8dca239610d3d991bf58d4fe38c2d86fd5 or using a similar approach.

As you prefer reverting the above commit, I will proceed so, hmm.. got
not so simple merge conflict, wish there was a command,
git revert logical ..

Regards
Afzal