Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 27 Jun 2012 16:40:57 +0530 | From | Rajendra Nayak <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2] clk: Add support for rate table based dividers |
| |
On Wednesday 27 June 2012 04:33 PM, Marc Kleine-Budde wrote: > On 06/27/2012 01:01 PM, Rajendra Nayak wrote: >> Some divider clks do not have any obvious relationship >> between the divider and the value programmed in the >> register. For instance, say a value of 1 could signify divide >> by 6 and a value of 2 could signify divide by 4 etc. >> Also there are dividers where not all values possible >> based on the bitfield width are valid. For instance >> a 3 bit wide bitfield can be used to program a value >> from 0 to 7. However its possible that only 0 to 4 >> are valid values. >> >> All these cases need the platform code to pass a simple >> table of divider/value tuple, so the framework knows >> the exact value to be written based on the divider >> calculation and can also do better error checking. >> >> This patch adds support for such rate table based >> dividers. >> >> Also since this means adding a new parameter to the >> clk_register_divider(), update all existing users of >> it. >> >> Signed-off-by: Rajendra Nayak<rnayak@ti.com> >> Cc: Sascha Hauer<kernel@pengutronix.de> >> Cc: Viresh Kumar<viresh.linux@gmail.com> >> --- >> arch/arm/mach-imx/clk.h | 2 +- >> drivers/clk/clk-divider.c | 67 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-- >> drivers/clk/spear/spear3xx_clock.c | 4 +- >> drivers/clk/spear/spear6xx_clock.c | 4 +- >> include/linux/clk-private.h | 3 +- >> include/linux/clk-provider.h | 10 +++++- >> 6 files changed, 80 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-imx/clk.h b/arch/arm/mach-imx/clk.h >> index 1bf64fe..8cb6f97 100644 >> --- a/arch/arm/mach-imx/clk.h >> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-imx/clk.h >> @@ -56,7 +56,7 @@ static inline struct clk *imx_clk_divider(const char *name, const char *parent, >> void __iomem *reg, u8 shift, u8 width) >> { >> return clk_register_divider(NULL, name, parent, CLK_SET_RATE_PARENT, >> - reg, shift, width, 0,&imx_ccm_lock); >> + reg, shift, width, 0, , NULL,&imx_ccm_lock); > ^^^^^ > > Is this valid C-Syntax?
Nope, its not. Thanks for catching. Will built test with imx and spear configs before the next spin.
> > Marc >
| |