linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 3/9] arm: twr-k70f120m: clock driver for Kinetis SoC

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:	Fri, 3 Jul 2015 00:08:27 +0200 (CEST)
From:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:	Paul Osmialowski <pawelo@...g.net.pl>
cc:	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	Ian Campbell <ijc+devicetree@...lion.org.uk>,
	Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.cz>, Kumar Gala <galak@...eaurora.org>,
	Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
	Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
	Michael Turquette <mturquette@...libre.com>,
	Pawel Moll <pawel.moll@....com>,
	Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
	Russell King <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
	Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...eaurora.org>,
	Vinod Koul <vinod.koul@...el.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-clk@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org, linux-serial@...r.kernel.org,
	devicetree@...r.kernel.org, dmaengine@...r.kernel.org,
	Nicolas Pitre <nicolas.pitre@...aro.org>,
	Sergei Poselenov <sposelenov@...raft.com>,
	Paul Bolle <pebolle@...cali.nl>,
	Jingchang Lu <jingchang.lu@...escale.com>,
	Yuri Tikhonov <yur@...raft.com>,
	Rob Herring <r.herring@...escale.com>,
	Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
	Uwe Kleine-Koenig <u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>,
	Alexander Potashev <aspotashev@...raft.com>,
	Frank Li <Frank.Li@...escale.com>,
	Anson Huang <b20788@...escale.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/9] arm: twr-k70f120m: clock driver for Kinetis SoC

On Thu, 2 Jul 2015, Paul Osmialowski wrote:
> On Thu, 2 Jul 2015, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> 
> > I wonder if you could move out the fixed rate clocks into their own
> > nodes. Are they actually controlled by the same block? If they are
> > just fixed, you can use the normal binding for fixed rate clocks
> > and only describe the clocks that are related to the driver.
> 
> In my view having these clocks grouped together looks more convincing. After
> all, they all share the same I/O regs in order to read configuration.

The fact that they share a register is not making them a group. That's
just a HW design decision and you need to deal with that by protecting
the register access, but not by trying to group them artificially at
the functional level.

Thanks,

	tglx
--
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/