On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 2:33 PM, Saravana Kannan <skan...@codeaurora.org> wrote: > On 03/20/2012 08:10 PM, Saravana Kannan wrote: >> >> On 03/20/2012 04:53 PM, Turquette, Mike wrote: >>> >>> It does make me >>> wonder if it would be a good idea to pass in the parent rate for >>> .set_parent, which is analogous to .set_rate in many ways. >> >> >> I need to think a bit more about this. > > > I was thinking about this. I think the common clock fwk should let the > set_parent ops "return" the rate of the clock in addition to passing the > rate of the parent in. > > Say this is a divider clock and some one changes the parent. The cached > "rate" of the clock in the clock fwk is no longer correct. So, the clock fwk > should also add a "*new_rate" param to set parent ops.
__clk_recalc_rates is called by __clk_reparent which is called by clk_set_parent. __clk_recalc_rates is also called by clk_set_rate. Does this not handle the old cached clk->rate for you? Thanks, Mike > > Thanks, > > Saravana > > -- > Sent by an employee of the Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. > The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum. _______________________________________________ linaro-dev mailing list linaro-dev@lists.linaro.org http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-dev
