Re: [PATCH 0/3] clk: divider: three exactness fixes (and a rant)

2015-03-13 Thread Philipp Zabel
Am Freitag, den 13.03.2015, 08:50 +0100 schrieb Uwe Kleine-König: > On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 09:57:53AM +0100, Philipp Zabel wrote: > > Am Mittwoch, den 11.03.2015, 18:21 -0700 schrieb Stephen Boyd: > > [...] > > > Why does Philipp like 110Hz the most? Where is the desire for that rate > > > coming

Re: [PATCH 0/3] clk: divider: three exactness fixes (and a rant)

2015-03-13 Thread Uwe Kleine-König
On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 09:57:53AM +0100, Philipp Zabel wrote: > Am Mittwoch, den 11.03.2015, 18:21 -0700 schrieb Stephen Boyd: > [...] > > Why does Philipp like 110Hz the most? Where is the desire for that rate > > coming from? > > > > > And the lower > > > abs(1 / 110 - 1 / r) the better. > >

Re: [PATCH 0/3] clk: divider: three exactness fixes (and a rant)

2015-03-13 Thread Uwe Kleine-König
On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 09:57:53AM +0100, Philipp Zabel wrote: Am Mittwoch, den 11.03.2015, 18:21 -0700 schrieb Stephen Boyd: [...] Why does Philipp like 110Hz the most? Where is the desire for that rate coming from? And the lower abs(1 / 110 - 1 / r) the better. Similarly,

Re: [PATCH 0/3] clk: divider: three exactness fixes (and a rant)

2015-03-13 Thread Philipp Zabel
Am Freitag, den 13.03.2015, 08:50 +0100 schrieb Uwe Kleine-König: On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 09:57:53AM +0100, Philipp Zabel wrote: Am Mittwoch, den 11.03.2015, 18:21 -0700 schrieb Stephen Boyd: [...] Why does Philipp like 110Hz the most? Where is the desire for that rate coming from?

Re: [PATCH 0/3] clk: divider: three exactness fixes (and a rant)

2015-03-12 Thread Philipp Zabel
Hi Stephen, Am Mittwoch, den 11.03.2015, 18:21 -0700 schrieb Stephen Boyd: [...] > Why does Philipp like 110Hz the most? Where is the desire for that rate > coming from? > > > And the lower > > abs(1 / 110 - 1 / r) the better. > > Similarly, where is this requirement coming from? Some

Re: [PATCH 0/3] clk: divider: three exactness fixes (and a rant)

2015-03-12 Thread Philipp Zabel
Hi Stephen, Am Mittwoch, den 11.03.2015, 18:21 -0700 schrieb Stephen Boyd: [...] Why does Philipp like 110Hz the most? Where is the desire for that rate coming from? And the lower abs(1 / 110 - 1 / r) the better. Similarly, where is this requirement coming from? Some datasheet? Or is

Re: [PATCH 0/3] clk: divider: three exactness fixes (and a rant)

2015-03-11 Thread Stephen Boyd
On 03/09/15 16:34, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: > Hello Stephen, > > On Mon, Mar 09, 2015 at 03:40:29PM -0700, Stephen Boyd wrote: >> On 03/09/15 14:58, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: >>> If you see >>> >>> round_rate(110) = 108 >>> >>> it would be fortunate to know if you get 108 because the next

Re: [PATCH 0/3] clk: divider: three exactness fixes (and a rant)

2015-03-11 Thread Stephen Boyd
On 03/09/15 16:34, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: Hello Stephen, On Mon, Mar 09, 2015 at 03:40:29PM -0700, Stephen Boyd wrote: On 03/09/15 14:58, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: If you see round_rate(110) = 108 it would be fortunate to know if you get 108 because the next available greater rate is

Re: [PATCH 0/3] clk: divider: three exactness fixes (and a rant)

2015-03-09 Thread Uwe Kleine-König
Hello Stephen, On Mon, Mar 09, 2015 at 03:40:29PM -0700, Stephen Boyd wrote: > On 03/09/15 14:58, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: > > If you see > > > > round_rate(110) = 108 > > > > it would be fortunate to know if you get 108 because the next available > > greater rate is > 112 or because the

Re: [PATCH 0/3] clk: divider: three exactness fixes (and a rant)

2015-03-09 Thread Stephen Boyd
On 03/09/15 14:58, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: > > If you see > > round_rate(110) = 108 > > it would be fortunate to know if you get 108 because the next available > greater rate is > 112 or because the implementation rounds down always > (which would mean that 111 is possible, too). For the

Re: [PATCH 0/3] clk: divider: three exactness fixes (and a rant)

2015-03-09 Thread Uwe Kleine-König
On Mon, Mar 09, 2015 at 02:07:35PM -0700, Mike Turquette wrote: > Quoting Stephen Boyd (2015-03-09 12:05:34) > > On 03/09/15 02:58, Philipp Zabel wrote: > > > Am Freitag, den 06.03.2015, 11:40 -0800 schrieb Stephen Boyd: > > >> On 03/06/15 11:28, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: > > >>> Hello Mike, > > >>>

Re: [PATCH 0/3] clk: divider: three exactness fixes (and a rant)

2015-03-09 Thread Mike Turquette
Quoting Stephen Boyd (2015-03-09 12:05:34) > On 03/09/15 02:58, Philipp Zabel wrote: > > Am Freitag, den 06.03.2015, 11:40 -0800 schrieb Stephen Boyd: > >> On 03/06/15 11:28, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: > >>> Hello Mike, > >>> > >>> On Fri, Mar 06, 2015 at 10:57:30AM -0800, Mike Turquette wrote: >

Re: [PATCH 0/3] clk: divider: three exactness fixes (and a rant)

2015-03-09 Thread Uwe Kleine-König
Hello Stephen, On Mon, Mar 09, 2015 at 12:05:34PM -0700, Stephen Boyd wrote: > On 03/09/15 02:58, Philipp Zabel wrote: > > Am Freitag, den 06.03.2015, 11:40 -0800 schrieb Stephen Boyd: > >> On 03/06/15 11:28, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: > >>> Hello Mike, > >>> > >>> On Fri, Mar 06, 2015 at 10:57:30AM

Re: [PATCH 0/3] clk: divider: three exactness fixes (and a rant)

2015-03-09 Thread Stephen Boyd
On 03/09/15 02:58, Philipp Zabel wrote: > Am Freitag, den 06.03.2015, 11:40 -0800 schrieb Stephen Boyd: >> On 03/06/15 11:28, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: >>> Hello Mike, >>> >>> On Fri, Mar 06, 2015 at 10:57:30AM -0800, Mike Turquette wrote: Quoting Uwe Kleine-König (2015-02-21 02:40:22) >

Re: [PATCH 0/3] clk: divider: three exactness fixes (and a rant)

2015-03-09 Thread Philipp Zabel
Am Freitag, den 06.03.2015, 11:40 -0800 schrieb Stephen Boyd: > On 03/06/15 11:28, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: > > Hello Mike, > > > > On Fri, Mar 06, 2015 at 10:57:30AM -0800, Mike Turquette wrote: > >> Quoting Uwe Kleine-König (2015-02-21 02:40:22) > >>> Hello, > >>> > >>> TLDR: only apply patch 1

Re: [PATCH 0/3] clk: divider: three exactness fixes (and a rant)

2015-03-09 Thread Uwe Kleine-König
On Mon, Mar 09, 2015 at 02:07:35PM -0700, Mike Turquette wrote: Quoting Stephen Boyd (2015-03-09 12:05:34) On 03/09/15 02:58, Philipp Zabel wrote: Am Freitag, den 06.03.2015, 11:40 -0800 schrieb Stephen Boyd: On 03/06/15 11:28, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: Hello Mike, On Fri, Mar 06,

Re: [PATCH 0/3] clk: divider: three exactness fixes (and a rant)

2015-03-09 Thread Mike Turquette
Quoting Stephen Boyd (2015-03-09 12:05:34) On 03/09/15 02:58, Philipp Zabel wrote: Am Freitag, den 06.03.2015, 11:40 -0800 schrieb Stephen Boyd: On 03/06/15 11:28, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: Hello Mike, On Fri, Mar 06, 2015 at 10:57:30AM -0800, Mike Turquette wrote: Quoting Uwe

Re: [PATCH 0/3] clk: divider: three exactness fixes (and a rant)

2015-03-09 Thread Stephen Boyd
On 03/09/15 02:58, Philipp Zabel wrote: Am Freitag, den 06.03.2015, 11:40 -0800 schrieb Stephen Boyd: On 03/06/15 11:28, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: Hello Mike, On Fri, Mar 06, 2015 at 10:57:30AM -0800, Mike Turquette wrote: Quoting Uwe Kleine-König (2015-02-21 02:40:22) Hello, TLDR: only

Re: [PATCH 0/3] clk: divider: three exactness fixes (and a rant)

2015-03-09 Thread Uwe Kleine-König
Hello Stephen, On Mon, Mar 09, 2015 at 12:05:34PM -0700, Stephen Boyd wrote: On 03/09/15 02:58, Philipp Zabel wrote: Am Freitag, den 06.03.2015, 11:40 -0800 schrieb Stephen Boyd: On 03/06/15 11:28, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: Hello Mike, On Fri, Mar 06, 2015 at 10:57:30AM -0800, Mike

Re: [PATCH 0/3] clk: divider: three exactness fixes (and a rant)

2015-03-09 Thread Stephen Boyd
On 03/09/15 14:58, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: If you see round_rate(110) = 108 it would be fortunate to know if you get 108 because the next available greater rate is 112 or because the implementation rounds down always (which would mean that 111 is possible, too). For the easy

Re: [PATCH 0/3] clk: divider: three exactness fixes (and a rant)

2015-03-09 Thread Uwe Kleine-König
Hello Stephen, On Mon, Mar 09, 2015 at 03:40:29PM -0700, Stephen Boyd wrote: On 03/09/15 14:58, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: If you see round_rate(110) = 108 it would be fortunate to know if you get 108 because the next available greater rate is 112 or because the implementation

Re: [PATCH 0/3] clk: divider: three exactness fixes (and a rant)

2015-03-09 Thread Philipp Zabel
Am Freitag, den 06.03.2015, 11:40 -0800 schrieb Stephen Boyd: On 03/06/15 11:28, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: Hello Mike, On Fri, Mar 06, 2015 at 10:57:30AM -0800, Mike Turquette wrote: Quoting Uwe Kleine-König (2015-02-21 02:40:22) Hello, TLDR: only apply patch 1 and rip of

Re: [PATCH 0/3] clk: divider: three exactness fixes (and a rant)

2015-03-06 Thread Uwe Kleine-König
On Fri, Mar 06, 2015 at 11:44:05AM -0800, Stephen Boyd wrote: > On 03/06/15 10:57, Mike Turquette wrote: > > > > Uwe, > > > > Thanks for the fixes. I'm thinking of taking all three for 4.0. I also > > agree on clk_round_rate_nearest (along with a _ceil and _floor version > > as well). That's

Re: [PATCH 0/3] clk: divider: three exactness fixes (and a rant)

2015-03-06 Thread Stephen Boyd
On 03/06/15 10:57, Mike Turquette wrote: > > Uwe, > > Thanks for the fixes. I'm thinking of taking all three for 4.0. I also > agree on clk_round_rate_nearest (along with a _ceil and _floor version > as well). That's something we can do for 4.1 probably. > > There are currently 3 users of

Re: [PATCH 0/3] clk: divider: three exactness fixes (and a rant)

2015-03-06 Thread Stephen Boyd
On 03/06/15 11:28, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: > Hello Mike, > > On Fri, Mar 06, 2015 at 10:57:30AM -0800, Mike Turquette wrote: >> Quoting Uwe Kleine-König (2015-02-21 02:40:22) >>> Hello, >>> >>> TLDR: only apply patch 1 and rip of CLK_DIVIDER_ROUND_CLOSEST. >>> >>> I stared at clk-divider.c for

Re: [PATCH 0/3] clk: divider: three exactness fixes (and a rant)

2015-03-06 Thread Uwe Kleine-König
Hello Mike, On Fri, Mar 06, 2015 at 10:57:30AM -0800, Mike Turquette wrote: > Quoting Uwe Kleine-König (2015-02-21 02:40:22) > > Hello, > > > > TLDR: only apply patch 1 and rip of CLK_DIVIDER_ROUND_CLOSEST. > > > > I stared at clk-divider.c for some time now given Sascha's failing test > >

Re: [PATCH 0/3] clk: divider: three exactness fixes (and a rant)

2015-03-06 Thread Mike Turquette
Quoting Uwe Kleine-König (2015-02-21 02:40:22) > Hello, > > TLDR: only apply patch 1 and rip of CLK_DIVIDER_ROUND_CLOSEST. > > I stared at clk-divider.c for some time now given Sascha's failing test > case. I found a fix for the failure (which happens to be what Sascha > suspected). > > The

Re: [PATCH 0/3] clk: divider: three exactness fixes (and a rant)

2015-03-06 Thread Mike Turquette
Quoting Uwe Kleine-König (2015-02-21 02:40:22) Hello, TLDR: only apply patch 1 and rip of CLK_DIVIDER_ROUND_CLOSEST. I stared at clk-divider.c for some time now given Sascha's failing test case. I found a fix for the failure (which happens to be what Sascha suspected). The other two

Re: [PATCH 0/3] clk: divider: three exactness fixes (and a rant)

2015-03-06 Thread Stephen Boyd
On 03/06/15 10:57, Mike Turquette wrote: Uwe, Thanks for the fixes. I'm thinking of taking all three for 4.0. I also agree on clk_round_rate_nearest (along with a _ceil and _floor version as well). That's something we can do for 4.1 probably. There are currently 3 users of

Re: [PATCH 0/3] clk: divider: three exactness fixes (and a rant)

2015-03-06 Thread Uwe Kleine-König
Hello Mike, On Fri, Mar 06, 2015 at 10:57:30AM -0800, Mike Turquette wrote: Quoting Uwe Kleine-König (2015-02-21 02:40:22) Hello, TLDR: only apply patch 1 and rip of CLK_DIVIDER_ROUND_CLOSEST. I stared at clk-divider.c for some time now given Sascha's failing test case. I found a

Re: [PATCH 0/3] clk: divider: three exactness fixes (and a rant)

2015-03-06 Thread Stephen Boyd
On 03/06/15 11:28, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: Hello Mike, On Fri, Mar 06, 2015 at 10:57:30AM -0800, Mike Turquette wrote: Quoting Uwe Kleine-König (2015-02-21 02:40:22) Hello, TLDR: only apply patch 1 and rip of CLK_DIVIDER_ROUND_CLOSEST. I stared at clk-divider.c for some time now given

Re: [PATCH 0/3] clk: divider: three exactness fixes (and a rant)

2015-03-06 Thread Uwe Kleine-König
On Fri, Mar 06, 2015 at 11:44:05AM -0800, Stephen Boyd wrote: On 03/06/15 10:57, Mike Turquette wrote: Uwe, Thanks for the fixes. I'm thinking of taking all three for 4.0. I also agree on clk_round_rate_nearest (along with a _ceil and _floor version as well). That's something we can

Re: [PATCH 0/3] clk: divider: three exactness fixes (and a rant)

2015-02-22 Thread Sascha Hauer
On Sat, Feb 21, 2015 at 11:40:22AM +0100, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: > Hello, > > TLDR: only apply patch 1 and rip of CLK_DIVIDER_ROUND_CLOSEST. > > I stared at clk-divider.c for some time now given Sascha's failing test > case. I found a fix for the failure (which happens to be what Sascha >

Re: [PATCH 0/3] clk: divider: three exactness fixes (and a rant)

2015-02-22 Thread Sascha Hauer
On Sat, Feb 21, 2015 at 11:40:22AM +0100, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: Hello, TLDR: only apply patch 1 and rip of CLK_DIVIDER_ROUND_CLOSEST. I stared at clk-divider.c for some time now given Sascha's failing test case. I found a fix for the failure (which happens to be what Sascha suspected).

[PATCH 0/3] clk: divider: three exactness fixes (and a rant)

2015-02-21 Thread Uwe Kleine-König
Hello, TLDR: only apply patch 1 and rip of CLK_DIVIDER_ROUND_CLOSEST. I stared at clk-divider.c for some time now given Sascha's failing test case. I found a fix for the failure (which happens to be what Sascha suspected). The other two patches fix problems only present when handling dividers

[PATCH 0/3] clk: divider: three exactness fixes (and a rant)

2015-02-21 Thread Uwe Kleine-König
Hello, TLDR: only apply patch 1 and rip of CLK_DIVIDER_ROUND_CLOSEST. I stared at clk-divider.c for some time now given Sascha's failing test case. I found a fix for the failure (which happens to be what Sascha suspected). The other two patches fix problems only present when handling dividers