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;
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
In-Reply-To: <CAFBinCAT-FxcHpt=NCt4g-OfzEUhvxh8TNRcY2hb5kdxna0Uyw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20210702225145.2643303-1-martin.blumenstingl@googlemail.com> <20210702225145.2643303-2-martin.blumenstingl@googlemail.com> <4eb964ac-4fff-b59d-2660-2f84d8af5901@gmail.com> <CAFBinCAVtd8gmcuvGU79-85CqhSU8a3mBCa_jweeZBd59u+amQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAFBinCAT-FxcHpt=NCt4g-OfzEUhvxh8TNRcY2hb5kdxna0Uyw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/6] clk: divider: Implement and wire up .determine_rate by default
From:   Stephen Boyd <sboyd@kernel.org>
Cc:     linux-clk@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Heiko =?utf-8?q?St=C3=BCbner?= <heiko@sntech.de>,
        linux-rockchip@lists.infradead.org
To:     Alex Bee <knaerzche@gmail.com>,
        Martin Blumenstingl <martin.blumenstingl@googlemail.com>
Date:   Thu, 14 Oct 2021 15:52:15 -0700
Message-ID: <163425193558.1688384.15520943968787313145@swboyd.mtv.corp.google.com>
User-Agent: alot/0.9.1
Precedence: bulk

Quoting Martin Blumenstingl (2021-10-14 14:34:54)
> On Thu, Oct 14, 2021 at 2:11 PM Martin Blumenstingl
> <martin.blumenstingl@googlemail.com> wrote:
> [...]
> > > Reverting this commit makes it work again: Unless there is a quick and
> > > obvious fix for that, I guess this should be done for 5.15 - even if =
the
> > > real issue is somewhere else.
> > Reverting this patch is fine from the Amlogic SoC point of view.
> > The main goal was to clean up / improve the CCF code.
> > Nothing (that I am aware of) is going to break in Amlogic land if we
> > revert this.
> Unfortunately only now I realized that reverting this patch would also
> require reverting the other five patches in this series (since they
> depend on this one).
> For this reason I propose changing the order of the checks in
> clk-composite.c - see the attached patch (which I can send as a proper
> one once agreed that this is the way to go forward)
>=20
> Off-list Alex also suggested that I should use rate_ops.determine_rate
> if available.
> While I agree that this makes sense in general my plan is to do this
> in a follow-up patch.
> Changing the order of the conditions is needed anyways and it *should*
> fix the issue reported here (but I have no way of testing that
> unfortunately).
>=20
> Alex, it would be great if you (or someone with Rockchip boards) could
> test the attached patch and let me know if it fixes the reported
> problem.
>=20

I can't read your attached patch. Please send it inline.