On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 5:34 PM, Andrew Jeffery [off-list ref] wrote:

On Wed, 2017-09-27 at 16:13 +1000, Joel Stanley wrote:

quoted

quoted

quoted

+                     div_table,

This doesn't seem to be correct. There's the problem of 0b000 and 0b001 mapping
the same value of 2 for the AST2500, whose table then increments in steps of 1.
The AST2400 mapping on the otherhand is multiples of 2 starting at 2, with no
inconsistency for 0b000 vs 0b001.

Yep, we do use a different table for ast2400 vs ast2500. See
ast2400_div_table vs ast2500_div_table.

Yep, but for the AST2500 this is a different table again to what you've
already defined (for the AST2500). However, for the AST2400 the table
looks the same as the other AST2400 tables.

You're right. I didn't realise you were pointing out something strange
about eclk.

I added another table for eclk, and the correct one is selected by the
platform data.

I'll send out v4 today if no more reviews come in.