Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20210716133448.24890-1-andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
 <20210716133448.24890-2-andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> <9117e5212a3b743ca541918ec2b701c159ac752c.camel@nxp.com>
In-Reply-To: <9117e5212a3b743ca541918ec2b701c159ac752c.camel@nxp.com>
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 22 Jul 2021 12:38:15 +0300
Message-ID: <CAHp75Vdm8nO-zT0vyKcB1hOXkR7_2RY-2P_fnkjV5BCc+uoqXQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] clk: fractional-divider: Introduce NO_PRESCALER flag
To:     Liu Ying <victor.liu@nxp.com>
Cc:     Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>,
        Heiko Stuebner <heiko@sntech.de>,
        Elaine Zhang <zhangqing@rock-chips.com>,
        Stephen Boyd <sboyd@kernel.org>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-clk@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
        linux-rockchip@lists.infradead.org,
        Michael Turquette <mturquette@baylibre.com>,
        NXP Linux Team <linux-imx@nxp.com>,
        Jacky Bai <ping.bai@nxp.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Jul 22, 2021 at 12:33 PM Liu Ying <victor.liu@nxp.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 2021-07-16 at 16:34 +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > The newly introduced flag, when set, makes the flow to skip
> > the assumption that the caller will use an additional 2^scale
> > prescaler to get the desired clock rate.
>
> As I mentioned in v1 comment, it seems to be good to decouple the
> prescaler knowledge from this common fractional divider clk driver.
> This way, we'll make it simpler and easier to maintain. Also, then, the
> NO_PRESCALER flag is not needed at all.  However, it seems that two
> Intel drivers which use the frational divider drivers will be affected
> and rate negotiation logics need to be implemented for them.  Please
> consider if it's doable or not.

The current driver works for the certain hardware without this change.
If you think it's better, submit a proposal we will discuss.

> If we ultimately keep the prescaler knowledge here, please consider to
> add the NO_PRESCALER flag for i.MX7ulp as it hasn't the prescaler IIUC.

You mean there is a code which is currently using this driver w/o
taking into account this prescaller flavour? Can you, please, point
out, I'll definitely update it. Thanks for the catch!

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko