Attention is currently required from: Shelley Chen. Paul Menzel has posted comments on this change. ( https://review.coreboot.org/c/coreboot/+/63289 )
Change subject: soc/qualcomm/common: Add strict flag to clock_configure() ......................................................................
Patch Set 5:
(6 comments)
Commit Message:
https://review.coreboot.org/c/coreboot/+/63289/comment/fbba2cc4_e5b820b2 PS5, Line 7: Add strict flag to clock_configure() You do not only add the flag, you also change behavior. Please update the commit message summary accordinly.
https://review.coreboot.org/c/coreboot/+/63289/comment/e38a8060_3b7d2164 PS5, Line 12: What call sites do you change, and why? Please describe the problem.
File src/soc/qualcomm/common/clock.c:
https://review.coreboot.org/c/coreboot/+/63289/comment/3c1a3044_09e87441 PS5, Line 104: assert(hz == clk_cfg[idx].hz) Why assert and not log an error?
File src/soc/qualcomm/common/include/soc/clock_common.h:
https://review.coreboot.org/c/coreboot/+/63289/comment/39c31676_531110a8 PS5, Line 151: strict=1 strict=true
https://review.coreboot.org/c/coreboot/+/63289/comment/ea5ef6fb_dc0e2e9f PS5, Line 158: strict Maybe exact_match?
File src/soc/qualcomm/sc7180/clock.c:
https://review.coreboot.org/c/coreboot/+/63289/comment/783963e2_1650123d PS5, Line 120: clock_configure Instead of having one more argument in the signature, I’d prefer a new function
clock_configure_strict()
and
clock_configure_round()
or similar.