Hi Sean,
> Hi Lukasz,
>
> On 1/29/20 7:29 PM, Lukasz Majewski wrote:
> >> Yes, but then clk_get_parent throws a fit, which gets called by
> >
> > Could you explain what "throw a fit" means here? I'm a bit
> > confused.
>
> Ok, so imagine I have a clk_divider in a composite clock. When
>
Hi Lukasz,
On 1/29/20 7:29 PM, Lukasz Majewski wrote:
>> Yes, but then clk_get_parent throws a fit, which gets called by
>
> Could you explain what "throw a fit" means here? I'm a bit confused.
Ok, so imagine I have a clk_divider in a composite clock. When
clk_get_rate gets called on the
Hi Sean,
> On 1/27/20 6:40 PM, Lukasz Majewski wrote:
> >> The real problem with the current approach (IMO) is that there is a
> >> mismatch between the clock structure and the clock function. If one
> >> calls clk_get_rate on some clock, the get_rate function is chosen
> >> based on
On 1/27/20 6:40 PM, Lukasz Majewski wrote:
>> The real problem with the current approach (IMO) is that there is a
>> mismatch between the clock structure and the clock function. If one
>> calls clk_get_rate on some clock, the get_rate function is chosen
>> based on clk->dev->ops.
>
> Yes,
Hi Sean,
> Hi Lukasz,
>
> Thanks for the feedback.
>
> On 1/26/20 4:20 PM, Lukasz Majewski wrote:
> > Hi Sean,
> >
> >> CCF clocks should always use the struct clock passed to their
> >> methods for extracting the driver-specific clock information
> >> struct.
> >
> > This couldn't be
Hi Lukasz,
Thanks for the feedback.
On 1/26/20 4:20 PM, Lukasz Majewski wrote:
> Hi Sean,
>
>> CCF clocks should always use the struct clock passed to their methods
>> for extracting the driver-specific clock information struct.
>
> This couldn't be done for i.MX8 at least. There was an issue
Hi Sean,
> CCF clocks should always use the struct clock passed to their methods
> for extracting the driver-specific clock information struct.
This couldn't be done for i.MX8 at least. There was an issue with
composite clock on this SoC.
(I've CC'ed Peng, who did this work for i.MX8 - I was
Hi Sean,
> On 1/24/20 9:27 AM, Lukasz Majewski wrote:
> > I saw your patches. Unfortunately, there was the Christmas/New
> > year's break and afterwards I had some more urgent tasks to do.
> > Apologize for that...
> >
> > What I would like to see here is to reuse (or better - make the code
> >
On 1/24/20 9:27 AM, Lukasz Majewski wrote:
> I saw your patches. Unfortunately, there was the Christmas/New year's
> break and afterwards I had some more urgent tasks to do. Apologize for
> that...
>
> What I would like to see here is to reuse (or better - make the code
> less confusing) the
Hi Sean,
> > I am not sure the modifications of clk are ok for other people.
> > It will be better to send pure riscv relative patch-sets.
>
> Hm, well at the moment removing the dependency on these two patches
> would probably require a substantial rewrite of patch 11, which would
> primarily
> [1] https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/1215327/
> [2] https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/1215328/
err, these references should be
[1] https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/1215335/
[2] https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/1215337/
> I am not sure the modifications of clk are ok for other people.
> It will be better to send pure riscv relative patch-sets.
Hm, well at the moment removing the dependency on these two patches
would probably require a substantial rewrite of patch 11, which would
primarily consist of duplicating
Hi Sean,
> > This patch is clock relative patch, if it is not a necessary patch for
> > Sipeed Maix support.
> > Please remove patch 1/11 and 2/11, and send them in another patch-sets.
>
> Patches 10 and 11 rely on these first two patches. Should I just
> reference the split off patches in the
> This patch is clock relative patch, if it is not a necessary patch for
> Sipeed Maix support.
> Please remove patch 1/11 and 2/11, and send them in another patch-sets.
Patches 10 and 11 rely on these first two patches. Should I just
reference the split off patches in the cover letter?
Hi Sean
> From: U-Boot [mailto:u-boot-boun...@lists.denx.de] On Behalf Of Sean Anderson
> Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2020 6:48 AM
> To: U-Boot Mailing List
> Subject: [PATCH v2 01/11] clk: Always use the supplied struct clk
>
> CCF clocks should always use the struct clock passed to their
15 matches
Mail list logo
