Hi Hugo,
On Wed, Oct 22, 2025 9:49 PM, Hugo Villeneuve wrote:
> > + for (params->pl5_postdiv1 = PLL5_POSTDIV_MIN;
> > + params->pl5_postdiv1 < PLL5_POSTDIV_MAX + 1;
>
> I think it would be easier to read/understand like this:
> params->pl5_postdiv1 <= PLL5_POSTDIV_MAX;
>
> > + params->pl5_postdiv1++) {
> > + for (params->pl5_postdiv2 = PLL5_POSTDIV_MIN;
> > + params->pl5_postdiv2 < PLL5_POSTDIV_MAX + 1;
>
> Ditto
OK. I can agree with that.
> > + params->pl5_fracin = div_u64(((u64)
> > + (foutvco_rate *
> > params->pl5_refdiv) %
> > + (EXTAL_FREQ_IN_MEGA_HZ *
> > MEGA)) << 24,
> > + EXTAL_FREQ_IN_MEGA_HZ *
> > MEGA);
> > +
> > + params->pl5_fracin = div_u64((u64)
> > + ((foutvco_rate *
> > params->pl5_refdiv) %
> > + (EXTAL_FREQ_IN_MEGA_HZ *
> > MEGA)) << 24,
> > + EXTAL_FREQ_IN_MEGA_HZ *
> > MEGA);
>
> Remove second identical block?
Wow! How did that get in there????
Thanks !
I'll wait a little to see if there are any other comments, then I'll send V4
Chris
