On Mon, Mar 02, 2009 at 04:02:14PM -0700, Paul Walmsley wrote:
Suggest returning a more specific error than -EINVAL:
if (clk-usecount 0)
return -EBUSY;
Done.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-omap in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
Hello Russell,
On Mon, 23 Feb 2009, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 06:50:52PM -0600, Woodruff, Richard wrote:
The historic usage of this has been against single use leaf clocks (1st
instance of gptimer). When it was used it did:
clk_get()
Hello Russell,
On Sat, 14 Feb 2009, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
On Sat, Feb 14, 2009 at 11:23:25AM +, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
There's also a second issue - the comments before omap2_divisor_to_clksel()
indicate that this function returns 0x on error. Unfortunately,
On Sun, Feb 22, 2009 at 04:37:31PM -0700, Paul Walmsley wrote:
Hello Russell,
On Sat, 14 Feb 2009, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
However, looking a little deeper, there's more issues in the reparenting
area. I don't think this code has been tested at all... In
From: Russell King - ARM Linux [mailto:li...@arm.linux.org.uk]
Sent: Monday, February 23, 2009 10:04 AM
To: Woodruff, Richard
Ack?
Ack.
diff --git a/arch/arm/plat-omap/clock.c b/arch/arm/plat-omap/clock.c
index 08baa18..b2d9e1f 100644
--- a/arch/arm/plat-omap/clock.c
+++
On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 06:50:52PM -0600, Woodruff, Richard wrote:
The historic usage of this has been against single use leaf clocks (1st
instance of gptimer). When it was used it did:
clk_get()
clk_set_parent()
clk_enable()
This usage was ok for that. Use on a
Hello Russell,
On Sat, 14 Feb 2009, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
However, looking a little deeper, there's more issues in the reparenting
area. I don't think this code has been tested at all... In
_omap2_clksel_get_src_field, there is this:
for (clkr = clks-rates; clkr-div;
On Sat, Feb 14, 2009 at 11:23:25AM +, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
On Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 12:01:37AM -0700, Paul Walmsley wrote:
(cc'ing Richard Woodruff)
Hello Russell,
On Mon, 9 Feb 2009, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 10:06:08PM +, Russell
From: Russell King - ARM Linux [mailto:li...@arm.linux.org.uk]
Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2009 6:20 AM
Consider what happens when a clock is enabled - we walk up the tree
enabling all parents. If we then change the clock's parent, and
then disable the child, we will again walk
On Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 12:01:37AM -0700, Paul Walmsley wrote:
(cc'ing Richard Woodruff)
Hello Russell,
On Mon, 9 Feb 2009, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 10:06:08PM +, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
@@ -780,7 +780,7 @@ int omap2_clk_set_parent(struct
On Sat, Feb 14, 2009 at 11:23:25AM +, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
There's also a second issue - the comments before omap2_divisor_to_clksel()
indicate that this function returns 0x on error. Unfortunately,
this is not so, it actually returns zero on error. Moreover, we test
(cc'ing Richard Woodruff)
Hello Russell,
On Mon, 9 Feb 2009, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 10:06:08PM +, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
@@ -780,7 +780,7 @@ int omap2_clk_set_parent(struct clk *clk, struct clk
*new_parent)
if (clk-usecount 0)
On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 10:06:08PM +, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
@@ -780,7 +780,7 @@ int omap2_clk_set_parent(struct clk *clk, struct clk
*new_parent)
if (clk-usecount 0)
_omap2_clk_enable(clk);
- clk-parent = new_parent;
+ clk_reparent(clk,
Hello Russell,
On Thu, 29 Jan 2009, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
And here is my version of this patch:
Thanks, your version is quite a bit cleaner than the original.
Will you merge your patch directly, or would you like me to resend your
version here?
- Paul
--
To unsubscribe from this
Hello Russell,
On Thu, 29 Jan 2009, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 12:27:59PM -0700, Paul Walmsley wrote:
+static int omap_clk_for_each_child(struct clk *clk, unsigned long
parent_rate,
+ u8 rate_storage, int (*cb)(struct clk *, unsigned long, u8))
On Thu, 29 Jan 2009, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 03:14:01PM +, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 12:27:59PM -0700, Paul Walmsley wrote:
The price paid is additional runtime memory consumption - 8 bytes per
clock and 16 bytes per child
On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 12:27:59PM -0700, Paul Walmsley wrote:
The price paid is additional runtime memory consumption - 8 bytes per
clock and 16 bytes per child clock - roughly 4.5KiB on OMAP3.
For OMAP3, that's 222 struct clks of which 182 are children, and indeed
222 * 8 + 182 * 16 gives
On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 12:27:59PM -0700, Paul Walmsley wrote:
+static int omap_clk_for_each_child(struct clk *clk, unsigned long
parent_rate,
+u8 rate_storage, int (*cb)(struct clk *, unsigned long, u8))
+{
+ struct clk_child *child;
+ int ret;
+
+
On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 03:14:01PM +, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 12:27:59PM -0700, Paul Walmsley wrote:
The price paid is additional runtime memory consumption - 8 bytes per
clock and 16 bytes per child clock - roughly 4.5KiB on OMAP3.
For OMAP3, that's 222
Track child clocks for each struct clk. This optimizes traversals of the
clock tree from parent to child, which happens during rate propagation, and
in the future, clock notifiers.
Previously, parent-to-child traversals sequentially scanned the entire
clock list at each step to determine the
20 matches
Mail list logo
