Quoting Michael Turquette (2019-04-23 10:34:13)
> On Mon, Apr 8, 2019 at 9:38 AM Jerome Brunet wrote:
> >
> > If removing .init() is important for you, I would prefer to help guys. That
> > being said, we need a decent solution to some use case if this is going to
> > work.
> >
> > I'll
Hi Jerome,
On Mon, Apr 8, 2019 at 9:38 AM Jerome Brunet wrote:
>
> On Fri, 2019-04-05 at 13:43 -0700, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> > Quoting Michael Turquette (2019-04-05 08:43:40)
> > > Hi Jerome,
> > >
> > > On Fri, Mar 29, 2019 at 3:58 PM Jerome Brunet
> > > wrote:
> > > > On Fri, 2019-03-29 at
On Fri, 2019-04-05 at 13:43 -0700, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> Quoting Michael Turquette (2019-04-05 08:43:40)
> > Hi Jerome,
> >
> > On Fri, Mar 29, 2019 at 3:58 PM Jerome Brunet wrote:
> > > On Fri, 2019-03-29 at 15:14 -0700, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> > > > > > We actively discourage using init
Quoting Michael Turquette (2019-04-05 08:43:40)
> Hi Jerome,
>
> On Fri, Mar 29, 2019 at 3:58 PM Jerome Brunet wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, 2019-03-29 at 15:14 -0700, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> > > > > We actively discourage using init callbacks. Can you do this some
> > > > > other
> > > > > way?
> > > >
Hi Jerome,
On Fri, Mar 29, 2019 at 3:58 PM Jerome Brunet wrote:
>
> On Fri, 2019-03-29 at 15:14 -0700, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> > > > We actively discourage using init callbacks. Can you do this some other
> > > > way?
> > >
> > > Yes I'm aware of that but init it the right place to do this.
> > >
On Fri, 2019-03-29 at 23:58 +0100, Jerome Brunet wrote:
> On Fri, 2019-03-29 at 15:14 -0700, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> > > > We actively discourage using init callbacks. Can you do this some other
> > > > way?
> > >
> > > Yes I'm aware of that but init it the right place to do this.
> > > To be
On Fri, 2019-03-29 at 15:14 -0700, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> > > We actively discourage using init callbacks. Can you do this some other
> > > way?
> >
> > Yes I'm aware of that but init it the right place to do this.
> > To be clear, this is not initializing the clock to some particular rate, the
>
Quoting Jerome Brunet (2019-03-26 00:53:15)
> On Mon, 2019-03-25 at 10:10 -0700, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> > Quoting Jerome Brunet (2019-03-25 04:11:57)
> > > @@ -138,6 +129,27 @@ static int mpll_set_rate(struct clk_hw *hw,
> > > return 0;
> > > }
> > >
> > > +static void mpll_init(struct
On Mon, 2019-03-25 at 10:10 -0700, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> Quoting Jerome Brunet (2019-03-25 04:11:57)
> > @@ -138,6 +129,27 @@ static int mpll_set_rate(struct clk_hw *hw,
> > return 0;
> > }
> >
> > +static void mpll_init(struct clk_hw *hw)
> > +{
> > + struct clk_regmap *clk =
Quoting Jerome Brunet (2019-03-25 04:11:57)
> @@ -138,6 +129,27 @@ static int mpll_set_rate(struct clk_hw *hw,
> return 0;
> }
>
> +static void mpll_init(struct clk_hw *hw)
> +{
> + struct clk_regmap *clk = to_clk_regmap(hw);
> + struct meson_clk_mpll_data *mpll =
Until now (gx and axg), the mpll setting on boot (whatever the
bootloader) was good enough generate a clean fractional division.
It is not the case on the g12a. While moving away from the vendor u-boot,
it was noticed the fractional part of the divider was no longer applied.
Like on the pll, some
11 matches
Mail list logo
