From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755516Ab2CWVdD (ORCPT ); Fri, 23 Mar 2012 17:33:03 -0400 Received: from wolverine02.qualcomm.com ([199.106.114.251]:36271 "EHLO wolverine02.qualcomm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755052Ab2CWVdC (ORCPT ); Fri, 23 Mar 2012 17:33:02 -0400 X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="5400,1158,6658"; a="173022818" Message-ID: <4F6CEC0C.4060704@codeaurora.org> Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2012 14:33:00 -0700 From: Saravana Kannan User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686 on x86_64; rv:11.0) Gecko/20120312 Thunderbird/11.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Turquette, Mike" CC: Shawn Guo , Paul Walmsley , Russell King , Linus Walleij , patches@linaro.org, Magnus Damm , Sascha Hauer , Mark Brown , Stephen Boyd , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linaro-dev@lists.linaro.org, Jeremy Kerr , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, Arnd Bergman Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 2/3] clk: introduce the common clock framework References: <1331878280-2758-1-git-send-email-mturquette@linaro.org> <1331878280-2758-3-git-send-email-mturquette@linaro.org> <20120320140220.GE32469@S2101-09.ap.freescale.net> <4F6946AA.4070201@codeaurora.org> In-Reply-To: <4F6946AA.4070201@codeaurora.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 03/20/2012 08:10 PM, Saravana Kannan wrote: > On 03/20/2012 04:53 PM, Turquette, Mike wrote: >> It does make me >> wonder if it would be a good idea to pass in the parent rate for >> .set_parent, which is analogous to .set_rate in many ways. > > I need to think a bit more about this. I was thinking about this. I think the common clock fwk should let the set_parent ops "return" the rate of the clock in addition to passing the rate of the parent in. Say this is a divider clock and some one changes the parent. The cached "rate" of the clock in the clock fwk is no longer correct. So, the clock fwk should also add a "*new_rate" param to set parent ops. Thanks, Saravana -- Sent by an employee of the Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum. From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: skannan@codeaurora.org (Saravana Kannan) Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2012 14:33:00 -0700 Subject: [PATCH v7 2/3] clk: introduce the common clock framework In-Reply-To: <4F6946AA.4070201@codeaurora.org> References: <1331878280-2758-1-git-send-email-mturquette@linaro.org> <1331878280-2758-3-git-send-email-mturquette@linaro.org> <20120320140220.GE32469@S2101-09.ap.freescale.net> <4F6946AA.4070201@codeaurora.org> Message-ID: <4F6CEC0C.4060704@codeaurora.org> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On 03/20/2012 08:10 PM, Saravana Kannan wrote: > On 03/20/2012 04:53 PM, Turquette, Mike wrote: >> It does make me >> wonder if it would be a good idea to pass in the parent rate for >> .set_parent, which is analogous to .set_rate in many ways. > > I need to think a bit more about this. I was thinking about this. I think the common clock fwk should let the set_parent ops "return" the rate of the clock in addition to passing the rate of the parent in. Say this is a divider clock and some one changes the parent. The cached "rate" of the clock in the clock fwk is no longer correct. So, the clock fwk should also add a "*new_rate" param to set parent ops. Thanks, Saravana -- Sent by an employee of the Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum.