Stephen, Thanks for the review
On 18/03/2019 at 20:54, Stephen Boyd wrote: > Quoting Nicolas Ferre (2019-03-18 03:50:45) >> From: Matthias Wieloch <[email protected]> >> >> The prescaler formula of the programmable clock has changed for sama5d2. >> Update >> the driver accordingly. >> >> Fixes: a2038077de9a ("clk: at91: add sama5d2 PMC driver") >> Cc: <[email protected]> # v4.20+ >> Signed-off-by: Nicolas Ferre <[email protected]> >> [[email protected]: adapt the prescaler range, >> fix clk_programmable_recalc_rate, split patch] >> Signed-off-by: Matthias Wieloch <[email protected]> >> Signed-off-by: Alexandre Belloni <[email protected]> >> --- >> v2: adapt to v5.1-rc1 >> remove unneeded sentence about DT in commit message >> >> Stephen, >> >> I think it would be good to see this fix going upstream during v5.1-rc phase. > > Ok. I can apply this clk-fixes. I presume that things are real bad and > it can't wait until v5.2? To be perfectly clear, it's not a regression. But as we're at the very beginning of the '-rc' phase and as it's a bug, I was thinking about adding it now. But you to choose, no problem either way. >> @@ -60,10 +68,18 @@ static int clk_programmable_determine_rate(struct clk_hw >> *hw, >> continue; >> >> parent_rate = clk_hw_get_rate(parent); >> - for (shift = 0; shift < PROG_PRES_MASK; shift++) { >> - tmp_rate = parent_rate >> shift; >> - if (tmp_rate <= req->rate) >> - break; >> + if (layout->is_pres_direct) { >> + for (shift = 0; shift <= layout->pres_mask; shift++) >> { >> + tmp_rate = parent_rate / (shift + 1); >> + if (tmp_rate <= req->rate) >> + break; >> + } >> + } else { >> + for (shift = 0; shift < layout->pres_mask; shift++) { >> + tmp_rate = parent_rate >> shift; >> + if (tmp_rate <= req->rate) >> + break; >> + } > > This looks like a lot of copy paste when the if statement could have been > pulled into the for loop instead of duplicating the loops and > surrounding if condition check for tmp_rate. Stop condition of loops not being the same made me separate them instead of adding artificial test conditions for shift == layout->pres_mask. I'm not sure the other way around is more obvious then... > >> } >> >> if (tmp_rate > req->rate) -- Nicolas Ferre
