Hi Dario, +Stephen Warren On Tue, 25 Aug 2020 at 03:24, Dario Binacchi <[email protected]> wrote: > > It returns the rate which will be set if you ask clk_set_rate() to set > that rate. It provides a way to query exactly what rate you'll get if > you call clk_set_rate() with that same argument. > So essentially, clk_round_rate() and clk_set_rate() are equivalent > except the former does not modify the clock hardware in any way. > > Signed-off-by: Dario Binacchi <[email protected]> > --- > > arch/sandbox/include/asm/clk.h | 9 +++++++++ > drivers/clk/clk-uclass.c | 15 +++++++++++++++ > drivers/clk/clk_sandbox.c | 17 +++++++++++++++++ > drivers/clk/clk_sandbox_test.c | 10 ++++++++++ > include/clk-uclass.h | 8 ++++++++ > include/clk.h | 29 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > test/dm/clk.c | 22 ++++++++++++++++++++++ > 7 files changed, 110 insertions(+) >
Reviewed-by: Simon Glass <[email protected]> But I wonder if we should change the set_rate() uclass interface to have a flag value, one of the flags being 'dry run' which doesn't actually set the value? You would still have the same call to the uclass functions clk_set_rate() and clk_round_rate() but the driver API would implement both with calls to set_rate()?
