On Wed, 2017-09-27 at 16:13 +1000, Joel Stanley wrote: > > > + div_table, > > > > This doesn't seem to be correct. There's the problem of 0b000 and 0b001 > > mapping > > the same value of 2 for the AST2500, whose table then increments in steps > > of 1. > > The AST2400 mapping on the otherhand is multiples of 2 starting at 2, with > > no > > inconsistency for 0b000 vs 0b001. > > Yep, we do use a different table for ast2400 vs ast2500. See > ast2400_div_table vs ast2500_div_table.
Yep, but for the AST2500 this is a different table again to what you've already defined (for the AST2500). However, for the AST2400 the table looks the same as the other AST2400 tables. Cheers, Andrew
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
