Hello, On Tue, Apr 14, 2020 at 11:24:12AM +0200, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: > Hello Stephen, hello Michael, > > On Wed, Feb 12, 2020 at 08:29:11AM +0100, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: > > Can you please explain what is the reason why clk_round_rate_up/down() > > is a bad idea? Would it help to create a patch that introduces these > > functions to get the discussion going? > > I didn't get any feedback on my mail. Are you to busy working on more > important stuff? Is the answer so obvious that you don't consider it > worth your time to answer? > > Looking a bit through the code I see there are two callbacks hwclks can > provide to implement rounding (determine_rate and round_rate). The docs > for both use the term "return the closes rate actually supported". Does > that mean "round-closest" is already the official policy and other > strategies in lowlevel drivers are a bug?
Feedback here would be really appreciated. I intend to unify the rounding behaviour of PWMs to always round down. If there was a similar constraint for clks, some corner cases might be a bit simpler. Looking forward to read about your thoughts, Uwe -- Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-König | Industrial Linux Solutions | https://www.pengutronix.de/ |
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
