From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.9 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,INCLUDES_PATCH,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SIGNED_OFF_BY,SPF_PASS autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D4249C46475 for ; Thu, 25 Oct 2018 10:56:14 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 871352082E for ; Thu, 25 Oct 2018 10:56:14 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=amarulasolutions.com header.i=@amarulasolutions.com header.b="iZQxSlEb" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 871352082E Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=amarulasolutions.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727512AbeJYT20 (ORCPT ); Thu, 25 Oct 2018 15:28:26 -0400 Received: from mail-it1-f196.google.com ([209.85.166.196]:35084 "EHLO mail-it1-f196.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726852AbeJYT20 (ORCPT ); Thu, 25 Oct 2018 15:28:26 -0400 Received: by mail-it1-f196.google.com with SMTP id p64-v6so1169482itp.0 for ; Thu, 25 Oct 2018 03:56:11 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=amarulasolutions.com; s=google; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=4ZSHoP/QNHkrQ1G3/y91mk+ensvzovTW1aj0lbtU5h0=; b=iZQxSlEbX48llLjY8w6aqJKaVBoq8luj55v28K8hBk77XOkkrJ/Yu9d21tzIPA67mN 7Lau6mAgaCEBZjACmS1ZJXCZUgRfYtfPf3kkwqBEuFVzX4B5Q7cJr1dQT7tIoRRgeswb QWqd6DYjGBs+jKtHpDIezSQ3PBU8fzXPoRicI= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=4ZSHoP/QNHkrQ1G3/y91mk+ensvzovTW1aj0lbtU5h0=; b=hpuIRRlKp6cgBa3JVpNftqbZriqI9l2RdLLH0XEgA91KB9tosik70fwUyJKb3/5u7E b15bDPUzj/Z3Ka5wIpwYHSXMEusHa4tjfyDhWH1Pc5SYyF5bxHj0tTDwgb5Lum54WUYy Xb7yeYYz13yFEJ/Pg2xROVdp1dko2IUro4fIlHbLTHzCpoTSfjSxG3d7qh0KG8tgYTKl Nyvy0e9vYlmamUyBcNpXAsNDRg1+wXzznc6ve7dcumfqeMAL36p6qDHQGTQ22nIR5o7H 6/bE8k7u4SBhU7Lk9ltAFq3fdhbOegItauySjUUYPRbiTuqm5F0btabjvU067BaNA6V1 v0aw== X-Gm-Message-State: AGRZ1gKVUQz+6vG1st1PrqwFdXn250iPcjBTbLACtwkMx2yGJLSUdIFK edtOQ7YM8PvejxPLy7QNvAinN/YoqWfdY5PbrCaxeA== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AJdET5dik+r+/EXqyu5FNxPXUe1z3vpDHrTtD0FRMOnBszZ803nRraubkSA6snFnrK5HAl6CkQlYpETAXO5pY0/4vXQ= X-Received: by 2002:a24:9f82:: with SMTP id c124-v6mr599069ite.32.1540464971232; Thu, 25 Oct 2018 03:56:11 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20181023155035.9101-1-jagan@amarulasolutions.com> <20181023155035.9101-3-jagan@amarulasolutions.com> <20181024180436.5n3i3z6h2yezc4cv@flea> In-Reply-To: <20181024180436.5n3i3z6h2yezc4cv@flea> From: Jagan Teki Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2018 16:25:59 +0530 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 02/15] clk: sunxi-ng: Add check for minimal rate to NKM PLLs To: Maxime Ripard Cc: Chen-Yu Tsai , Icenowy Zheng , Jernej Skrabec , Vasily Khoruzhick , Rob Herring , Mark Rutland , Catalin Marinas , Will Deacon , David Airlie , dri-devel , Michael Turquette , Stephen Boyd , linux-clk , Michael Trimarchi , linux-arm-kernel , devicetree , linux-kernel , linux-sunxi@googlegroups.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 11:34 PM Maxime Ripard wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 09:20:22PM +0530, Jagan Teki wrote: > > Some NKM PLLs doesn't work well when their output clock rate is set below > > certain rate. > > > > So, add support for minimal rate for relevant PLLs. > > > > Signed-off-by: Jagan Teki > > --- > > Changes for v2: > > - new patch > > > > drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_nkm.c | 7 +++++++ > > drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_nkm.h | 1 + > > 2 files changed, 8 insertions(+) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_nkm.c b/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_nkm.c > > index 841840e35e61..d17539dc88dd 100644 > > --- a/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_nkm.c > > +++ b/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_nkm.c > > @@ -125,6 +125,13 @@ static unsigned long ccu_nkm_round_rate(struct ccu_mux_internal *mux, > > if (nkm->common.features & CCU_FEATURE_FIXED_POSTDIV) > > rate *= nkm->fixed_post_div; > > > > + if (rate < nkm->min_rate) { > > + rate = nkm->min_rate; > > + if (nkm->common.features & CCU_FEATURE_FIXED_POSTDIV) > > + rate /= nkm->fixed_post_div; > > I'm not sure this is right. Is the post divider taken into account to > calculate the minimum, or is the minimum on the rate before the fixed > post divider. Since we are returning from here, we need to take care post div which is actually doing at the end of round_rate. > > How did you test this? I've not used this on PLL_MIPI atleast, so I didn't test this.