linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 1/2] dt-bindings: brcm: clocks: add binding for brcmstb-cpu-clk-div

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:   Mon, 6 Feb 2017 17:04:26 -0800
From:   Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...eaurora.org>
To:     Florian Fainelli <florian.fainelli@...adcom.com>
Cc:     Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
        Markus Mayer <markus.mayer@...adcom.com>,
        Markus Mayer <code@...yer.net>,
        Michael Turquette <mturquette@...libre.com>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
        "Rafael J . Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        Broadcom Kernel List <bcm-kernel-feedback-list@...adcom.com>,
        Linux Clock List <linux-clk@...r.kernel.org>,
        Power Management List <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
        Device Tree List <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        ARM Kernel List <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 1/2] dt-bindings: brcm: clocks: add binding for
 brcmstb-cpu-clk-div

On 02/06, Florian Fainelli wrote:
> On 02/06/2017 02:59 PM, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> > On 02/03, Florian Fainelli wrote:
> >>
> >> We already have another piece of drive code that manipulates registers
> >> in the Bus Interface Unit located in drivers/soc/bcm/brcmstb/biuctrl.c
> >> and which has little to nothing to do with the CPU's clock ratio. And
> >> actually another one being submitted that deals with the CPU's
> >> read-ahead cache. I would very much prefer we keep all of them separate
> >> and dealing with just the register offset they need to do, but that does
> >> not mean the Device Tree binding has to look that way though.
> >>
> >> The binding for the BIUCTRL register made it here:
> >>
> >> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/bcm/brcm,brcmstb.txt
> >>
> >> so we should re-use that, and have a small piece of clock provided that
> >> just uses the relevant register range within that larger register space
> >> and provide the CLOCK_RATIO. Does that work?
> >>
> > 
> > Ok. That's fine. The existing binding will be updated to include
> > this new subnode then for the clock component?
> 
> Humm, I suppose we could do that yes, my original thought was to just
> have this CPU clock provider remap the entire BIUCTRL register range
> (of_iomap() etc.) and manipulate just the relevant register range of
> interest (CPU_CLOCK_CONFIG_REG), but if you want a sub-node to appear,
> we could probably do that as well.

One node is fine as well. I thought the plan was many subnodes
based on the binding document you mentioned earlier.

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