On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 08:56:34AM +0100, Tomeu Vizoso wrote: > From: Mikko Perttunen <[email protected]> > > The driver is currently only tested on Tegra124 Jetson TK1, but should > work with other Tegra124 boards, provided that correct EMC tables are > provided through the device tree. Older chip models have differing > timing change sequences, so they are not currently supported. > > Signed-off-by: Mikko Perttunen <[email protected]> > Signed-off-by: Tomeu Vizoso <[email protected]> [...] > diff --git a/drivers/clk/tegra/clk-emc.c b/drivers/clk/tegra/clk-emc.c > new file mode 100644 > index 0000000..75beacd > --- /dev/null > +++ b/drivers/clk/tegra/clk-emc.c [...] > +/* > + * Rounds up unless no higher rate exists, in which case down. This way is > + * safer since things have EMC rate floors. Also don't touch parent_rate > + * since we don't want the CCF to play with our parent clocks. > + */ > +static long emc_round_rate(struct clk_hw *hw, unsigned long rate, > + unsigned long *parent_rate) > +{ > + struct tegra_emc *tegra = container_of(hw, struct tegra_emc, hw); > + u8 ram_code = tegra_read_ram_code(); > + struct emc_timing *timing; > + int i; > + > + /* > + * Returning the original rate will lead to a more sensible error > + * message when emc_set_rate fails. > + */ > + if (tegra->num_timings == 0) > + return rate; > + > + for (i = 0; i < tegra->num_timings; ++i) { > + timing = tegra->timings + i; > + if (timing->ram_code != ram_code) > + continue;
Is timing->ram_code != ram_code really something that is allowed? > + > + if (timing->rate >= rate) > + return timing->rate; > + } > + > + return tegra->timings[tegra->num_timings - 1].rate; If tegra->timings has timings for different ram_codes, the last timing might not be for the requested ram_code. > +} -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-tegra" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
