linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 5/6] Clocklib: Use correct clock for IrDA on pxa

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, 9 Apr 2008 11:15:51 +0400
From:	Dmitry <dbaryshkov@...il.com>
To:	"Russell King" <rmk+lkml@....linux.org.uk>
Cc:	"Andrew Morton" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, haavard.skinnemoen@...el.com,
	lethal@...ux-sh.org, philipp.zabel@...il.com, pavel@....cz,
	tony@...mide.com, paul@...an.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/6] Clocklib: Use correct clock for IrDA on pxa

Hi,

2008/4/8, Russell King <rmk+lkml@....linux.org.uk>:
> On Tue, Apr 08, 2008 at 01:47:35PM +0400, Dmitry wrote:
>  > Yes, it works currently. But there are a few problems: we declare
>  > STUART's UARTCLK with dev=NULL (all other UARTCLKs are declared with
>  > proper devices).  Therefore,  I consider it as a hack and would like
>  > to remove it.
>
>
> I don't consider it a hack at all - it's a work around for the fact
>  that the PXA FIR driver shares the UART, but the FIR driver doesn't
>  bind to the UART itself.

Would you then accept the patch that still contains UARTCLK bound to
pxa uart device, and IrDA requesting clock STUARTCLK?

>  The _real_ issue is with IrDA itself, and is larger than just the
>  clock library.  Any serial port which supports IrDA, even on x86,
>  has to be shared between the serial driver and the IrDA driver -
>  there's no way for them to quietly co-exist and "just work" as
>  requested.

Yes. I wonder how this is solved in other platforms.
>
>  So, let's not work around the short comings of Serial/IrDA interactions
>  by adding additional complexity to random other layers which _shouldn't_
>  even be seeing the issue.
>
>  In addition, the point of the clock framework is that you ask for the
>  device plus clock NAME on _that_ device.  Inventing random other names
>  for the same physical clock on the same physical device is just nonsense -
>  even more so than the existing workaround.

See my proposition above. I highly dislike the UARTCLK w/o device declared.
Once it has already lead me to (small) problems due to messed other
UARTCLKs  declarations on pxa25x.

-- 
With best wishes
Dmitry
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/