linux-kernel - Re: [RFC] API for system clocks (oscillators)

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]

Message-ID: <7a6abd110810300927l428b11f3u509ad31364c08f1f@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Thu, 30 Oct 2008 17:27:30 +0100
From:	"Jonas Bonn" <jonas.bonn@...il.com>
To:	"Jon Smirl" <jonsmirl@...il.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] API for system clocks (oscillators)

>
> How does this compare to the framework in linux/include/linux/clk.h?
>

clk.h is pretty much just an infrastructure for "storing" clock data
and accessors... it does not provide:

i) Constraints on selectable frequencies of active devices
ii) Notifiers on frequency change, including changes due to events
such as reparenting

These are the big ones that cause headaches.  When I want to switch
frequency, I have to check elsewhere which devices are active and
which frequencies they allow.  When a frequency changes, I have to
manually make sure that the active devices are notified properly of
the change.  These are the main things that my document tries to
consolidate into one framework.  Like I said, I'm not sure it's the
right approach, that's why I requested feedback...

/Jonas
--
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/