On Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 10:17:43AM +0300, Peter De Schrijver wrote: > On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 10:48:19AM +0300, Peter De Schrijver wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 09:46:05AM -0700, Stephen Boyd wrote: > > > On 03/21, Peter De Schrijver wrote: > > > > Whenever a user change its min or max rate limit of a clock, we need to > > > > re-evaluate the current clock rate and possibly change it if the new > > > > limits > > > > require so. To do this clk_set_rate_range() already calls > > > > clk_core_set_rate_nolock, however this won't have the intended effect > > > > because the core clock rate hasn't changed. To fix this, move the test > > > > to > > > > avoid setting the same core clock rate again, to clk_set_rate() so > > > > clk_core_set_rate_nolock() can change the clock rate when min or max > > > > have > > > > been updated, even when the core clock rate has not changed. > > > > > > I'd expect some sort of Fixes: tag here? Or it never worked!? > > > > I don't think this ever worked. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Peter De Schrijver <[email protected]> > > > > > > I seem to recall some problems here around rate aggregation that > > > we fixed after the patches merged. Sorry, but I have to go back > > > and look at those conversations to refresh my memory and make > > > sure this is all fine. > > > > > > Are you relying on the rate setting op to be called with the new > > > min/max requirements if the aggregated rate is the same? I don't > > > understand why clk drivers care. > > > > > > > No. But I do rely on the rate setting op to be called when a new min or max > > rate would cause the rate to be changed even when there is no new rate > > request. > > > > Eg: > > > > min = 100MHz, max = 500MHz, current rate request is 400MHz, then max > > changes to > > 300MHz. Today the rate setting op will not be called, while I think it > > should > > be called to lower the rate to 300MHz. > > > > Any news on this? or do you think this is an unreasonable assumption? >
Ping! Peter.
