linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v6 4/6] ARM: dts: Renesas RZ/N1 SoC base device tree file

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, 23 May 2018 12:53:36 +0100
From:   M P <buserror@...il.com>
To:     Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>
Cc:     michel.pollet@...renesas.com, linux-renesas-soc@...r.kernel.org,
        Simon Horman <horms@...ge.net.au>,
        Phil Edworthy <phil.edworthy@...esas.com>,
        buserror+upstream@...il.com, Magnus Damm <magnus.damm@...il.com>,
        robh+dt@...nel.org, mark.rutland@....com,
        Michael Turquette <mturquette@...libre.com>, sboyd@...nel.org,
        geert+renesas@...der.be, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-clk@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 4/6] ARM: dts: Renesas RZ/N1 SoC base device tree file

Hi Geert,

On Wed, 23 May 2018 at 12:18, Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>
wrote:

> Hi Michel,

> On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 11:20 AM, M P <buserror@...il.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, 23 May 2018 at 10:12, Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>
> > wrote:
> >> On Tue, May 22, 2018 at 12:01 PM, Michel Pollet
> >> <michel.pollet@...renesas.com> wrote:
> >> > +       #address-cells = <1>;
> >> > +       #size-cells = <1>;
> >> > +
> >> > +       cpus {
> >> > +               #address-cells = <1>;
> >> > +               #size-cells = <0>;
> >> > +               clocks = <&clock RZN1_DIV_CA7>;
> >
> >> I think the clocks property should be moved to the individual CPU
nodes.
> >
> > Ah, I had a look around, and I found some instances that are in the cpu
> > sub-node, and others that are not -- it seems that having it in the cpu
> > sub-node would implies it's core specific... here if that clock is
changed
> > both cores would change speed...

> Assumed the driver code knows to look in the parent node, which I doubt
> the cpufreq code does.

> > Either way, it's not used by the kernel in any way at the moment -- I
had
> > hoped cpufreq or something would claim it, but it's not the case.

> I guess you have to add your main SoC compatible value to the whitelist
> in drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq-dt-platdev.c first.

Most excellent tip here -- I'll add a further patch to enable this, after
this series eventually gets merged...

Cheers,
Michel