`Hi Andy,On 2/9/2019 8:24 PM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:> On Mon, Sep 02, 2019 at 03:20:30PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:>> On Mon, Sep 02, 2019 at 03:43:13PM +0800, Tanwar, Rahul wrote:>>> On 28/8/2019 11:09 PM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:>>>> On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 03:00:17PM +0800, Rahul Tanwar wrote:>>>> Does val == 0 follows the table, i.e. makes div == 1?>>> 0 val means output clock is ref clock i.e. div ==1. Agree that adding>>> .val = 0, .div =1 entry will make it more clear & complete.>>>>>>>> +	{ .val = 0, .div = 1 },>>>>> +	{ .val = 1, .div = 2 },>>>>> +	{ .val = 2, .div = 3 },>> 1>>>>>>> +	{ .val = 3, .div = 4 },>>>>> +	{ .val = 4, .div = 5 },>>>>> +	{ .val = 5, .div = 6 },>> 1>>>>>>> +	{ .val = 6, .div = 8 },>>>>> +	{ .val = 7, .div = 10 },>>>>> +	{ .val = 8, .div = 12 },>> 2>>>>>>> +	{ .val = 9, .div = 16 },>>>>> +	{ .val = 10, .div = 20 },>>>>> +	{ .val = 11, .div = 24 },>> 4>>>>>>> +	{ .val = 12, .div = 32 },>>>>> +	{ .val = 13, .div = 40 },>>>>> +	{ .val = 14, .div = 48 },>> 8>>>>>>> +	{ .val = 15, .div = 64 },>> 16>>>>>> So, now we see the pattern:>>>> 	div = 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];        int i, j;        for (i = 0; i < 16; i++)                div_table[i].val = i;        for (i = 0, j=0; i < 16; i+=3, j++) {                div_table[i].div = (i == 0) ? (1 << j) : (1 << (j + 1));                if (i == 15)                        break;                div_table[i + 1].div = (i == 0) ? ((1 << j) + 1) :                                        (1 << (j + 1)) + (1 << (j - 1));                div_table[i + 2].div = (3 << j);        }To me, table still looks a better approach. Also, table is more extendable &consistent w.r.t. clk framework & other referenced clk drivers.Whats your opinion ?Regards,Rahul`