linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/4] dmaengine: qcom: bam

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:   Tue, 23 Jan 2018 14:49:05 +0530
From:   Vinod Koul <vinod.koul@...el.com>
To:     Srinivas Kandagatla <srinivas.kandagatla@...aro.org>
Cc:     Andy Gross <andy.gross@...aro.org>, dmaengine@...r.kernel.org,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        David Brown <david.brown@...aro.org>,
        Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, linux-soc@...r.kernel.org,
        yanhe@...cinc.com, ramkri@....qualcomm.com, sdharia@...cinc.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] dmaengine: qcom: bam_dma: make bam clk optional

On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 09:55:01AM +0000, Srinivas Kandagatla wrote:

> >>@@ -1180,13 +1180,14 @@ static int bam_dma_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> >>  						"qcom,controlled-remotely");
> >>  	bdev->bamclk = devm_clk_get(bdev->dev, "bam_clk");
> >
> >but you still do clk_get unconditionally?
> 
> Only reason to do this way is to not break existing users in the mainline.
> 
> remotely controlled BAM is already supported in upstream driver, there are
> users of this who pass clk from device tree, If I make this conditional then
> subsequent reads to the BAM registers for those instances might crash the
> system.

But these instances are remote controlled, so if we stop representing them
in Linux, why would we read them?

-- 
~Vinod