Hi Sergei, On Thursday 05 February 2015 01:14:46 Sergei Shtylyov wrote: > On 02/05/2015 01:04 AM, Sergei Shtylyov wrote: > >>>>> Anyone may call clk_round_rate() with a zero rate value, so we have to > >>>>> protect against that. > >>>>> > >>>>> Signed-off-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+rene...@glider.be> > >>>> > >>>> Acked-by: Wolfram Sang <wsa+rene...@sang-engineering.com> > >>>> > >>>> I agree that this should not be fixed in the core because the fixup is > >>>> really driver dependant. > >>>> > >>> Dunno, zero frequency seems generally insane to me. > >> > >> It is useful to find the lowest frequency a clock can support. Basically > >> it is a search for the floor frequency. > >> > > Why not just use 1? Or are you assuming that some hardware could actually > > support 0 Hz? > > Replying to myself: yes, this has happened to me, when I forgot to override > the EXTAL frequency in the board .dts file (default was 0).
So it was a good thing that the driver crashed, it let you find a bug ;-) Jokes aside, a zero frequency is the usual way to find the lowest frequency, but I agree that there aren't many integers between 0 and 1. Mike, do you have an opinion ? -- Regards, Laurent Pinchart -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
