linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC] clk: add support for automatic parent handling

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Sun, 24 Apr 2011 09:26:21 +1000
From:	Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
To:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc:	Saravana Kannan <skannan@...eaurora.org>,
	Paul McKenney <paul.mckenney@...aro.org>,
	Uwe Kleine-König 
	<u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
	Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@...gutronix.de>,
	Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...eaurora.org>,
	Jeremy Kerr <jeremy.kerr@...onical.com>, kernel@...gutronix.de,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Ben Dooks <ben-linux@...ff.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
	Paul Mundt <lethal@...ux-sh.org>,
	linux-sh <linux-sh@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] clk: add support for automatic parent handling

On Thu, 2011-04-21 at 12:33 +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> 
> Depends, there is a lot of sane hardware out there (not necessarily in
> the ARM SoC world). We can do with a pointer if the need arises.
>  
> > >     optionally a set of common register accessor functions like I did
> > >     for the generic irq chip.
> > 
> > Again, I don't see the point in having this in the common code. May be I'm
> > missing something?
> 
> See my RFC patch of a generic irq chip implementation and how much
> duplicated five line inline functions they removed.
>  
> > IMO, a better option instead of the base register and the offsets would be an
> > option to have a priv_data pointer. I forgot the exact use case, but we
> > thought that would have been helpful when we tried to port the msm clock
> > driver in our tree on top of Jeremy's patches.
> 
> It works either way, but we should try to comeup with a sensible
> common base struct for sane hardware. 

Doesn't have to be in the base struct tho. I think a better approach is
to keep the base struct reasonably API-only, and have an
"implementation" subclass called something like simple_clk for example,
that carries those few fields common to most MMIO based implementation
and which can be created with existing "helper" code for the most common
ones.

Ben.


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/