From: Jerome Brunet <jbrunet@baylibre.com>
To: Martin Blumenstingl <martin.blumenstingl@googlemail.com>
Cc: mturquette@baylibre.com, sboyd@kernel.org,
Neil Armstrong <narmstrong@baylibre.com>,
linux-clk@vger.kernel.org, khilman@baylibre.com,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-amlogic@lists.infradead.org,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC v1 1/3] clk: divider: Add re-usable determine_rate implementations
Date: Wed, 19 May 2021 14:31:41 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1jv97eaor6.fsf@starbuckisacylon.baylibre.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAFBinCB+5bFH0LW4rqYGCiO-X-xmer67cp5kXpyU0d-OfxiOvw@mail.gmail.com>
On Tue 18 May 2021 at 22:33, Martin Blumenstingl <martin.blumenstingl@googlemail.com> wrote:
> Hi Jerome,
>
> On Tue, May 18, 2021 at 9:44 AM Jerome Brunet <jbrunet@baylibre.com> wrote:
> [...]
>> > +int divider_ro_determine_rate(struct clk_hw *hw, struct clk_rate_request *req,
>> > + const struct clk_div_table *table, u8 width,
>> > + unsigned long flags, unsigned int val)
>> > +{
>> > + int div;
>> > +
>> > + div = _get_div(table, val, flags, width);
>> > +
>> > + /* Even a read-only clock can propagate a rate change */
>> > + if (clk_hw_get_flags(hw) & CLK_SET_RATE_PARENT) {
>> > + if (!req->best_parent_hw)
>> > + return -EINVAL;
>> > +
>> > + req->best_parent_rate = clk_hw_round_rate(req->best_parent_hw,
>> > + req->rate * div);
>> > + }
>> > +
>> > + req->rate = DIV_ROUND_UP_ULL((u64)req->best_parent_rate, div);
>> > +
>> > + return 0;
>> > +}
>> > +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(divider_ro_determine_rate);
>>
>> For a final version, could you factorize the code with the .round_rate()
>> variant ? It would remove a bit of duplication.
> my first idea was to basically let the new _determine_rate code just
> forward all relevant parameters to _round_rate
> however, I discarded that as it turned out to be less understandable
> for me as parameters need to be mapped in both ways
>
> while writing this mail I noticed that the opposite direction
> (meaning: _round_rate forwards to _determine_rate) will probably work.
> I'll give it a try in the next days
> if you had anything else in mind then please let me know
Yep, the idea would be to use the determine_rate() part as the common
implementation. AFAICT, all you need is to build req_rate structure in
the round_rate() part.
>
>> Maybe determine_rate() can also replace round_rate() in the generic
>> divider ops ?
> sure, I'll add that as a separate patch in this series
> note to myself: testing can be done with the MMC drivers as we're
> using the generic clk_divider_ops there
>
>
> Best regards,
> Martin
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Jerome Brunet <jbrunet@baylibre.com>
To: Martin Blumenstingl <martin.blumenstingl@googlemail.com>
Cc: mturquette@baylibre.com, sboyd@kernel.org,
Neil Armstrong <narmstrong@baylibre.com>,
linux-clk@vger.kernel.org, khilman@baylibre.com,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-amlogic@lists.infradead.org,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC v1 1/3] clk: divider: Add re-usable determine_rate implementations
Date: Wed, 19 May 2021 14:31:41 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1jv97eaor6.fsf@starbuckisacylon.baylibre.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAFBinCB+5bFH0LW4rqYGCiO-X-xmer67cp5kXpyU0d-OfxiOvw@mail.gmail.com>
On Tue 18 May 2021 at 22:33, Martin Blumenstingl <martin.blumenstingl@googlemail.com> wrote:
> Hi Jerome,
>
> On Tue, May 18, 2021 at 9:44 AM Jerome Brunet <jbrunet@baylibre.com> wrote:
> [...]
>> > +int divider_ro_determine_rate(struct clk_hw *hw, struct clk_rate_request *req,
>> > + const struct clk_div_table *table, u8 width,
>> > + unsigned long flags, unsigned int val)
>> > +{
>> > + int div;
>> > +
>> > + div = _get_div(table, val, flags, width);
>> > +
>> > + /* Even a read-only clock can propagate a rate change */
>> > + if (clk_hw_get_flags(hw) & CLK_SET_RATE_PARENT) {
>> > + if (!req->best_parent_hw)
>> > + return -EINVAL;
>> > +
>> > + req->best_parent_rate = clk_hw_round_rate(req->best_parent_hw,
>> > + req->rate * div);
>> > + }
>> > +
>> > + req->rate = DIV_ROUND_UP_ULL((u64)req->best_parent_rate, div);
>> > +
>> > + return 0;
>> > +}
>> > +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(divider_ro_determine_rate);
>>
>> For a final version, could you factorize the code with the .round_rate()
>> variant ? It would remove a bit of duplication.
> my first idea was to basically let the new _determine_rate code just
> forward all relevant parameters to _round_rate
> however, I discarded that as it turned out to be less understandable
> for me as parameters need to be mapped in both ways
>
> while writing this mail I noticed that the opposite direction
> (meaning: _round_rate forwards to _determine_rate) will probably work.
> I'll give it a try in the next days
> if you had anything else in mind then please let me know
Yep, the idea would be to use the determine_rate() part as the common
implementation. AFAICT, all you need is to build req_rate structure in
the round_rate() part.
>
>> Maybe determine_rate() can also replace round_rate() in the generic
>> divider ops ?
> sure, I'll add that as a separate patch in this series
> note to myself: testing can be done with the MMC drivers as we're
> using the generic clk_divider_ops there
>
>
> Best regards,
> Martin
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Jerome Brunet <jbrunet@baylibre.com>
To: Martin Blumenstingl <martin.blumenstingl@googlemail.com>
Cc: mturquette@baylibre.com, sboyd@kernel.org,
Neil Armstrong <narmstrong@baylibre.com>,
linux-clk@vger.kernel.org, khilman@baylibre.com,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-amlogic@lists.infradead.org,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC v1 1/3] clk: divider: Add re-usable determine_rate implementations
Date: Wed, 19 May 2021 14:31:41 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1jv97eaor6.fsf@starbuckisacylon.baylibre.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAFBinCB+5bFH0LW4rqYGCiO-X-xmer67cp5kXpyU0d-OfxiOvw@mail.gmail.com>
On Tue 18 May 2021 at 22:33, Martin Blumenstingl <martin.blumenstingl@googlemail.com> wrote:
> Hi Jerome,
>
> On Tue, May 18, 2021 at 9:44 AM Jerome Brunet <jbrunet@baylibre.com> wrote:
> [...]
>> > +int divider_ro_determine_rate(struct clk_hw *hw, struct clk_rate_request *req,
>> > + const struct clk_div_table *table, u8 width,
>> > + unsigned long flags, unsigned int val)
>> > +{
>> > + int div;
>> > +
>> > + div = _get_div(table, val, flags, width);
>> > +
>> > + /* Even a read-only clock can propagate a rate change */
>> > + if (clk_hw_get_flags(hw) & CLK_SET_RATE_PARENT) {
>> > + if (!req->best_parent_hw)
>> > + return -EINVAL;
>> > +
>> > + req->best_parent_rate = clk_hw_round_rate(req->best_parent_hw,
>> > + req->rate * div);
>> > + }
>> > +
>> > + req->rate = DIV_ROUND_UP_ULL((u64)req->best_parent_rate, div);
>> > +
>> > + return 0;
>> > +}
>> > +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(divider_ro_determine_rate);
>>
>> For a final version, could you factorize the code with the .round_rate()
>> variant ? It would remove a bit of duplication.
> my first idea was to basically let the new _determine_rate code just
> forward all relevant parameters to _round_rate
> however, I discarded that as it turned out to be less understandable
> for me as parameters need to be mapped in both ways
>
> while writing this mail I noticed that the opposite direction
> (meaning: _round_rate forwards to _determine_rate) will probably work.
> I'll give it a try in the next days
> if you had anything else in mind then please let me know
Yep, the idea would be to use the determine_rate() part as the common
implementation. AFAICT, all you need is to build req_rate structure in
the round_rate() part.
>
>> Maybe determine_rate() can also replace round_rate() in the generic
>> divider ops ?
> sure, I'll add that as a separate patch in this series
> note to myself: testing can be done with the MMC drivers as we're
> using the generic clk_divider_ops there
>
>
> Best regards,
> Martin
_______________________________________________
linux-amlogic mailing list
linux-amlogic@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-amlogic
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-05-19 12:31 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 39+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-05-17 20:37 [PATCH RFC v1 0/3] clk: meson: rounding for fast clocks on 32-bit SoCs Martin Blumenstingl
2021-05-17 20:37 ` Martin Blumenstingl
2021-05-17 20:37 ` Martin Blumenstingl
2021-05-17 20:37 ` [PATCH RFC v1 1/3] clk: divider: Add re-usable determine_rate implementations Martin Blumenstingl
2021-05-17 20:37 ` Martin Blumenstingl
2021-05-17 20:37 ` Martin Blumenstingl
2021-05-18 7:44 ` Jerome Brunet
2021-05-18 7:44 ` Jerome Brunet
2021-05-18 7:44 ` Jerome Brunet
2021-05-18 20:33 ` Martin Blumenstingl
2021-05-18 20:33 ` Martin Blumenstingl
2021-05-18 20:33 ` Martin Blumenstingl
2021-05-19 12:31 ` Jerome Brunet [this message]
2021-05-19 12:31 ` Jerome Brunet
2021-05-19 12:31 ` Jerome Brunet
2021-05-17 20:37 ` [PATCH RFC v1 2/3] clk: meson: regmap: switch to determine_rate for the dividers Martin Blumenstingl
2021-05-17 20:37 ` Martin Blumenstingl
2021-05-17 20:37 ` Martin Blumenstingl
2021-05-18 7:47 ` Jerome Brunet
2021-05-18 7:47 ` Jerome Brunet
2021-05-18 7:47 ` Jerome Brunet
2021-05-17 20:37 ` [PATCH RFC v1 3/3] clk: meson: pll: switch to determine_rate for the PLL ops Martin Blumenstingl
2021-05-17 20:37 ` Martin Blumenstingl
2021-05-17 20:37 ` Martin Blumenstingl
2021-05-18 7:50 ` Jerome Brunet
2021-05-18 7:50 ` Jerome Brunet
2021-05-18 7:50 ` Jerome Brunet
2021-05-18 20:17 ` Martin Blumenstingl
2021-05-18 20:17 ` Martin Blumenstingl
2021-05-18 20:17 ` Martin Blumenstingl
2021-05-19 15:10 ` Jerome Brunet
2021-05-19 15:10 ` Jerome Brunet
2021-05-19 15:10 ` Jerome Brunet
2021-05-18 7:37 ` [PATCH RFC v1 0/3] clk: meson: rounding for fast clocks on 32-bit SoCs Jerome Brunet
2021-05-18 7:37 ` Jerome Brunet
2021-05-18 7:37 ` Jerome Brunet
2021-05-18 20:20 ` Martin Blumenstingl
2021-05-18 20:20 ` Martin Blumenstingl
2021-05-18 20:20 ` Martin Blumenstingl
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1jv97eaor6.fsf@starbuckisacylon.baylibre.com \
--to=jbrunet@baylibre.com \
--cc=khilman@baylibre.com \
--cc=linux-amlogic@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-clk@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=martin.blumenstingl@googlemail.com \
--cc=mturquette@baylibre.com \
--cc=narmstrong@baylibre.com \
--cc=sboyd@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.