On 01/10/2017 01:23 AM, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> On 01/05, Marek Vasut wrote:
>> On 01/05/2017 03:13 PM, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
>>> Hi Marek,
>>
>> Hi!
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>>>>>> +static unsigned long vc5_mux_recalc_rate(struct clk_hw *hw,
>>>>>>> + unsigned long parent_rate)
>>>>>>> +{
>>>>>>> + struct vc5_driver_data *vc5 =
>>>>>>> + container_of(hw, struct vc5_driver_data, clk_mux);
>>>>>>> + unsigned long idiv;
>>>>>>> + u8 div;
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> + /* FIXME: Needs locking ? */
>>>>>
>>>>> Let's fix it then :-)
>>>>
>>>> I would like to get feedback on this one, does it ?
>>>
>>> That's a question for Mike or Stephen I believe.
>>
>> OK
>
> What's the question?
Whether or not I need a lock around the code in vc5_mux_recalc_rate(),
since I am also tweaking the predivider bits there to assure the
(downstream) PLL supplied from the mux always gets clock in range it can
handle. This tweaking is mostly inspired by clk-si5351.c driver.
--
Best regards,
Marek Vasut
