linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 10/44] clk: davinci: New driver for davinci PSC clocks

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, 17 Jan 2018 11:28:41 -0600
From:   David Lechner <david@...hnology.com>
To:     Sekhar Nori <nsekhar@...com>, linux-clk@...r.kernel.org,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Cc:     Michael Turquette <mturquette@...libre.com>,
        Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...eaurora.org>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        Kevin Hilman <khilman@...nel.org>,
        Adam Ford <aford173@...il.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 10/44] clk: davinci: New driver for davinci PSC clocks

On 01/17/2018 06:25 AM, Sekhar Nori wrote:
> On Tuesday 16 January 2018 10:21 PM, David Lechner wrote:
> 
>>>> +static struct clk *davinci_psc_clk_register(const char *name,
>>>> +                        const char *parent_name,
>>>> +                        struct regmap *regmap,
>>>> +                        u32 lpsc, u32 pd, u32 flags)
>>>> +{
>>>> +    struct clk_init_data init;
>>>> +    struct davinci_psc_clk *psc;
>>>> +    struct clk *clk;
>>>> +
>>>> +    psc = kzalloc(sizeof(*psc), GFP_KERNEL);
>>>> +    if (!psc)
>>>> +        return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM);
>>>> +
>>>> +    init.name = name;
>>>> +    init.ops = &davinci_psc_clk_ops;
>>>> +    init.parent_names = (parent_name ? &parent_name : NULL);
>>>> +    init.num_parents = (parent_name ? 1 : 0);
>>>> +    init.flags = CLK_SET_RATE_PARENT;
>>>
>>> Is this needed since PSC does not cause any rate change?
>>
>> Yes, because one of the PSCs is the ARM clock and for cpufreq, we
>> need to propagate the rate change up the chain to SYSCLK6.
> 
> Good point. But how about treating that as an exception with a new LPSC_
> quirk flag?

Sure.