Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
In-Reply-To: <CAHp75VdtsXjW5kaWVspi-5u6ya5512Yk7VN4HJ4Tn34PWci5Og@mail.gmail.com>
References: <cover.1566975410.git.rahul.tanwar@linux.intel.com> <6a3c26bc6e25d883686287883528dbde30725922.1566975410.git.rahul.tanwar@linux.intel.com> <20190828150951.GS2680@smile.fi.intel.com> <e4a1fd0a-b179-92dd-fb81-22d9d7465a33@linux.intel.com> <20190902122030.GE2680@smile.fi.intel.com> <20190902122454.GF2680@smile.fi.intel.com> <db9b8978-b9ae-d1bf-2477-78a99b82367a@linux.intel.com> <CAHp75VdtsXjW5kaWVspi-5u6ya5512Yk7VN4HJ4Tn34PWci5Og@mail.gmail.com>
Cc:     Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@intel.com>,
        Michael Turquette <mturquette@baylibre.com>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
        robhkernel.org@smile.fi.intel.com,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
        linux-clk <linux-clk@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        qi-ming.wu@intel.com, yixin.zhu@linux.intel.com,
        cheol.yong.kim@intel.com, rahul.tanwar@intel.com
From:   Stephen Boyd <sboyd@kernel.org>
To:     "Tanwar, Rahul" <rahul.tanwar@linux.intel.com>,
        Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/2] clk: intel: Add CGU clock driver for a new SoC
User-Agent: alot/0.8.1
Date:   Mon, 23 Dec 2019 19:04:31 -0800
Message-Id: <20191224030431.E0E93206B7@mail.kernel.org>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Quoting Andy Shevchenko (2019-12-07 06:57:43)
> On Fri, Dec 6, 2019 at 7:06 AM Tanwar, Rahul
> <rahul.tanwar@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> > On 2/9/2019 8:24 PM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > >>
> > >>      div =3D val < 3 ? (val + 1) : (1 << ((val - 3) / 3));
> > > It's not complete, but I think you got the idea.
> > >
> > >> So, can we eliminate table?
> >
> > In the desperation to eliminate table, below is what i can come up with:
> >
> >         struct clk_div_table div_table[16];
>=20
> But this is not an elimination, it's just a replacement from static to
> dynamically calculated one.
>=20
> >         int i, j;
> >
> >         for (i =3D 0; i < 16; i++)
> >                 div_table[i].val =3D i;
> >
> >         for (i =3D 0, j=3D0; i < 16; i+=3D3, j++) {
> >                 div_table[i].div =3D (i =3D=3D 0) ? (1 << j) : (1 << (j=
 + 1));
> >                 if (i =3D=3D 15)
> >                         break;
> >
> >                 div_table[i + 1].div =3D (i =3D=3D 0) ? ((1 << j) + 1) :
> >                                         (1 << (j + 1)) + (1 << (j - 1));
> >                 div_table[i + 2].div =3D (3 << j);
> >         }
> >
> > To me, table still looks a better approach. Also, table is more extenda=
ble &
> > consistent w.r.t. clk framework & other referenced clk drivers.
> >
> > Whats your opinion ?
>=20
> Whatever CCF maintainers is fine with.
>=20

Table is fine. Or something that calculates is also fine. Is it going to
be extended in the future? If we're talking about a driver for hardware
I wonder if this is really going to change in the future.

Please resend so your binding can be reviewed.