-- Forwarded message --
From: Humberto Naves hsna...@gmail.com
Date: Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 11:01 AM
Subject: Re: Role of PLL_ENABLE_BIT
To: Yadwinder Singh Brar yadi.bra...@gmail.com
Cc: linux-samsung-soc linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org, Mike
Turquette mturque...@linaro.org
Hi Andreas,
I guess the original message was not plain text, and majordomo refused
to deliver it :-(
The signedness is not an issue, if I just use what I sent in the
patch, the set_rate function works like a charm. But otherwise, the
whole system freezes and I have to reboot the machine.
Best,
Hi,
I am bit confused by your response: first you mentioned that I should
remove the NULL check for variable np, but later on you suggested that
I should rearrange the conditional statement to avoid adding more
indentation. My guess is that I should remove that if statement
altogether?
Regarding
Hi Tomasz,
I perfectly see your point.
However my question was why you did you decide to postpone
Sylwester's? Was there any specific reason?
I suppose it would break all the dtb compatibility, but besides that,
was there any other reason?
Best,
Humberto
On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 2:53 PM, Tomasz
Hi Tomasz,
I remember checking these rates on my calculator. You might notice the
odd frequency of 45158401Hz (no pun intended) in the EPLL clock. This
particular clock frequency was giving me a big headache in a previous
project, since it was wrongly listed as 45158400. At first it seems
Hi,
On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 1:45 PM, Sylwester Nawrocki
s.nawro...@samsung.com wrote:
Can you explain what is rationale behind this change ? Is it related to
suspend/resume ordering ?
I had forgotten, but now remember the reason why I did this. If you
see the current implementation of
Hi,
On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 5:19 PM, Tomasz Figa tomasz.f...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm not sure I get the idea of the field you're suggesting. If I
understand correctly, your intention would be to provide a default
frequency if there is no table provided. I don't think there is a need
for it,
