From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2016 16:16:54 -0800 From: Stephen Boyd To: Tero Kristo Cc: Laurent Pinchart , Ladislav Michl , linux-omap@vger.kernel.org, linux-clk@vger.kernel.org, Paul Walmsley , Richard Watts , Tony Lindgren , Alexander Kinzer , Michael Turquette Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] clk: ti: omap36xx: Work around sprz319 advisory 2.1 Message-ID: <20161208001654.GD5423@codeaurora.org> References: <1480713278-6884-1-git-send-email-laurent.pinchart@ideasonboard.com> <2239782.MNuANFihMe@avalon> <20161205093649.GA31898@localhost.localdomain> <3176488.xoM6adFiVO@avalon> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: List-ID: On 12/05, Tero Kristo wrote: > On 05/12/16 13:08, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > >Hi Ladislav, > > > >On Monday 05 Dec 2016 10:36:49 Ladislav Michl wrote: > >>On Mon, Dec 05, 2016 at 10:46:43AM +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > >>>On Monday 05 Dec 2016 09:22:10 Ladislav Michl wrote: > >> > >>[snip] > >> > >>>>Table 36 list two options with 26MHz clocks: m=443, n=11 and m=480, n=12 > >>>>with a statement: "The choice between these two options with a 26 MHz > >>>>input should be based on characterization on the end system." > >>>> > >>>>Shall we care about that? > >>> > >>>I'd like to, but at the moment I don't see how. Proposals are welcome :-) > >>>I > >> > >>One of proposals raised earlier was DT property, but that idea was scratched > >>later. > > > >It might not be such a bad idea, given that the decision should be made based > >on the characterization of the whole system. One could argue that such > >platform information could have its place in DT. > > > >>>don't think addressing that issue should be a blocker to get this patch > >>>merged though. > >> > >>Of course not. I'd like to even see it in stable ;-) > >> > >>[snip] > >> > >>>I had tried that, but I find the code less readable :-S > >> > >>Oh... Please reconsider (I really do not like that extra test and extra > >>assignment to local variables (also I had 'precomputed' as mixed definition, > >>but Tero did not quite like that)) :-) > > > >I still like to favour code readability when possible (especially when the > >compiler should optimize both versions the same way). I'm not the maintainer > >of this driver though, so I'll let Tero decides what he prefers. > > The compiler should ideally generate same size code for these both. > Personally, I don't mind which version goes in; I'd say both are as > readable. > > Stephen, Mike, is one of you going to pick this up? I don't think I > have anything else to pull due to the ongoing discussion with the > other pending stuff. > I have no problem picking up either version. Please send it with the appropriate tags added and I can merge it. -- Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project