Hi Raphael,
On 18/4/24 21:16, Raphael Poggi wrote:
When dealing with few clocks depending with each others, sometimes
we might only want to update the multiplier/diviser on a specific clock
(cf clockB in drawing below) and call "clock_propagate(clockA)" to
update the childs period according to the potential new multiplier/diviser
values.
+--------+ +--------+ +--------+
| clockA | --> | clockB | --> | clockC |
+--------+ +--------+ +--------+
The actual code would not allow that because, since we cannot call
"clock_propagate" directly on a child, it would exit on the
first child has the period has not changed for clockB, only clockC is
Typo "as the period has not changed"?
Why can't you call clock_propagate() on a child?
impacted in our example.
Signed-off-by: Raphael Poggi <raphael.po...@lynxleap.co.uk>
---
hw/core/clock.c | 3 ++-
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/hw/core/clock.c b/hw/core/clock.c
index a19c7db7df..85421f8b55 100644
--- a/hw/core/clock.c
+++ b/hw/core/clock.c
@@ -101,8 +101,9 @@ static void clock_propagate_period(Clock *clk, bool
call_callbacks)
if (call_callbacks) {
clock_call_callback(child, ClockUpdate);
}
- clock_propagate_period(child, call_callbacks);
}
+
+ clock_propagate_period(child, call_callbacks);
}
}
