On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 5:34 PM, Andrew Jeffery <and...@aj.id.au> wrote: > On Wed, 2017-09-27 at 16:13 +1000, Joel Stanley wrote: >> > > + div_table, >> > >> > This doesn't seem to be correct. There's the problem of 0b000 and 0b001 >> > mapping >> > the same value of 2 for the AST2500, whose table then increments in steps >> > of 1. >> > The AST2400 mapping on the otherhand is multiples of 2 starting at 2, with >> > no >> > inconsistency for 0b000 vs 0b001. >> >> Yep, we do use a different table for ast2400 vs ast2500. See >> ast2400_div_table vs ast2500_div_table. > > Yep, but for the AST2500 this is a different table again to what you've > already defined (for the AST2500). However, for the AST2400 the table > looks the same as the other AST2400 tables.
You're right. I didn't realise you were pointing out something strange about eclk. I added another table for eclk, and the correct one is selected by the platform data. I'll send out v4 today if no more reviews come in.
