linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] clkdev: Implement managed clk

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

Date:	Mon, 2 Apr 2012 18:16:42 +0100
From:	Mark Brown <broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com>
To:	Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...eaurora.org>
Cc:	Russell King <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
	Mike Turquette <mturquette@...com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] clkdev: Implement managed clk_get()

On Mon, Apr 02, 2012 at 09:48:31AM -0700, Stephen Boyd wrote:

> I hope we get a better clk_get() implementation with the unified struct
> clk. Don't get me wrong, clkdev is a great improvement over open coding
> clock framework stuff in each platform. But clkdev is really just
> another platform specific implementation that most platforms decide to
> use. Each platform has to select the option and it breaks if two

> Sticking devm_clk_get() into clkdev.c is simple, no new file, smaller
> diff. Great. But linking it to clkdev doesn't sound much better when
> we're trying to get rid of platform specific code and this code is
> entirely platform independent.

Why wouldn't we want to continue to use clkdev with the generic clock
framework?  There's nothing particularly wrong with clkdev and we need a
standard mechanism for doing this anyway.  Frankly I was very surprised
when I looked just now and realised that the generic framework doesn't
use it automatically, I might just send a patch for that...

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (837 bytes)