linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 01/10] phy: qcom-ufs: remove failure when rx/tx_iface

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:   Wed, 19 Oct 2016 22:50:15 +0530
From:   Vivek Gautam <vivek.gautam@...eaurora.org>
To:     Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...eaurora.org>
Cc:     kishon <kishon@...com>, jejb@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
        vinholikatti@...il.com, martin.petersen@...cle.com,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        subhashj@...eaurora.org, linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, Yaniv Gardi <ygardi@...eaurora.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 01/10] phy: qcom-ufs: remove failure when
 rx/tx_iface_clk are absent

Hi,


On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 2:48 AM, Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...eaurora.org> wrote:
> On 10/18/2016 07:28 AM, Vivek Gautam wrote:
>> From: Yaniv Gardi <ygardi@...eaurora.org>
>>
>> Since in future UFS Phy's the tx_iface_clk and rx_iface_clk
>> are no longer exist, we should not fail when their initialization
>> fail, but rather just report with debug message.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Yaniv Gardi <ygardi@...eaurora.org>
>> Signed-off-by: Vivek Gautam <vivek.gautam@...eaurora.org>
>> ---
>
> Shouldn't we have a different compatible string on future UFS phys so
> that we know which number of clks and what clks are required? That's how
> we typically handle clk configurations changing. Making them optional
> should really only be needed when they're really optional, i.e. things
> will work fine if they're there or not.

Correct. It makes sense to have different compatible strings for different
versions.
I will gather more information about previous versions that required
this clock, and update as suggested.


Regards
Vivek


-- 
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum,
a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project