On Tue, Nov 20, 2018 at 4:26 PM Maxime Ripard [off-list ref] wrote:

On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 08:51:04PM +0530, Jagan Teki wrote:

quoted

quoted

quoted

 drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_nkm.c | 3 +++
 drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_nkm.h | 1 +
 2 files changed, 4 insertions(+)

diff --git a/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_nkm.c b/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_nkm.c
index 6b5ad990f802..b8b66cdd30bf 100644
--- a/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_nkm.c
+++ b/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_nkm.c

@@ -128,6 +128,9 @@ static unsigned long ccu_nkm_round_rate(struct ccu_mux_internal *mux,
      if (rate < nkm->min_rate)
              return nkm->min_rate;

+     if (nkm->max_rate && rate > nkm->max_rate)
+             return nkm->max_rate;
+

I would expect the test to be the same for the minimum and maximum cases.

I don't have proper use-case for max rate test, I do verify by using
higher the rate on dclock, but nor sure.  May be I can skip the
max_rate patch?

So you're sending more patches that you haven't really tested?

I didn't understand this question.

Why are you sending them then?

I think I've mentioned in the first version patch itself, since it's
common code and many other callers might have used for rate
alternative I did it how other ccu dividers does. I have not added
just as simple.

quoted

Apart from this, any idea about this issue where SUN4I_TCON0_DCLK_REG
will only work with div upto 6 on A64 DSI panels[1], did you find the
same issue on A33?

IIRC my panel was falling into the case where the divider was 4, so
I've not fallen into that case.

OK, thanks.