[PATCH v3 3/5] clk: add support for clocks provided by SCP(System Control Processor)

[Stephen Boyd]

On 06/05, Sudeep Holla wrote:
> 
> 
> On 05/06/15 10:36, Sudeep Holla wrote:
> >
> >
> >On 04/06/15 21:20, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> >>On 05/27, Sudeep Holla wrote:
> 
> [...]
> 
> >>>+
> >>>+static unsigned long scpi_clk_recalc_rate(struct clk_hw *hw,
> >>>+					  unsigned long parent_rate)
> >>>+{
> >>>+	struct scpi_clk *clk = to_scpi_clk(hw);
> >>>+
> >>>+	return scpi_ops->clk_get_val(clk->id);
> >>>+}
> >>>+
> >>>+static long scpi_clk_round_rate(struct clk_hw *hw, unsigned long rate,
> >>>+				unsigned long *parent_rate)
> >>>+{
> >>>+	struct scpi_clk *clk = to_scpi_clk(hw);
> >>>+
> >>>+	if (WARN_ON(clk->rate_min && rate < clk->rate_min))
> >>>+		rate = clk->rate_min;
> >>>+	if (WARN_ON(clk->rate_max && rate > clk->rate_max))
> >>>+		rate = clk->rate_max;
> >>>+
> >>>+	return rate;
> >>>+}
> >>
> >>Hm.. this seems really generic. It might be better to support a
> >>way to tell the framework to limit the min/max rate that's
> >>accepted for a clk. That could be done later though.
> >>
> >
> >True, framework have some boundary checks in place. I will check if
> >I can use it with minimum changes to the core. If not, we can take this
> >up later as you suggested.
> >
> 
> I found that the framework already provides clk_set_rate_range for this
> purpose. Sorry for missing this earlier(seems like that's added quite
> recently in v4.0). I think I still need to retain round_rate as the core
> framework insists.

Sure, or use determine_rate if you want to limit the min/max from
the clk provider itself.

-- 
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum,
a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project