linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH] dt: describe base reset signal binding

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, 29 Oct 2012 11:32:33 -0700
From:	Mike Turquette <mturquette@...com>
To:	Stephen Warren <swarren@...dotorg.org>,
	Rob Herring <rob.herring@...xeda.com>,
	Grant Likely <grant.likely@...retlab.ca>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
Cc:	devicetree-discuss@...ts.ozlabs.org,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Stephen Warren <swarren@...dia.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] dt: describe base reset signal binding

Quoting Stephen Warren (2012-10-23 14:45:56)
> What do people think of this? Does it sound like a good idea to go ahead
> with a reset subsystem? Should we simply add a new API to the common clock
> subsystem instead (and assume that reset and clock domains match 1:1).
> Should this be implemented as part of the generic power management domains;
> see include/linux/pm_domain.h instead?
> 

Hi Stephen,

I'm not sure a "reset subsystem" is necessary, but I also do not like
using clocks as the keys for IP reset.  I think it is more common to map
IPs to struct device, no?

And of course for clocks shared by multiple users this will not scale.

Regards,
Mike
--
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/