linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] tmio_mmc: Optionally support using platform clock

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: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0907281556160.6219@axis700.grange>
Date:	Tue, 28 Jul 2009 17:45:46 +0200 (CEST)
From:	Guennadi Liakhovetski <g.liakhovetski@....de>
To:	Ian Molton <ian@...menth.co.uk>
cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Magnus Damm <damm@...nsource.se>,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, Matt Fleming <matt@...sole-pimps.org>,
	Philip Langdale <philipl@...rt.org>,
	Dmitry Baryshkov <dbaryshkov@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tmio_mmc: Optionally support using platform clock

On Tue, 28 Jul 2009, Ian Molton wrote:

> Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote:
> > If the platform device has a clock associated with the tmio-mmc device, use
> > it.
> 
> Sorry, I misread there.
> 
> I'm still not sure what to to about this though because we seem to be
> collecting numerous ways of passing clocks to this driver, this is the fourth,
> by my counting.
> 
> the clock API could cope with all of them by simply allowing the driver to
> claim CLK_MMC (or such) from its parent, except that it cant cope with both
> the platform and MFD code providing clocks. The parent could be either the
> TMIO MFD core (for TMIO MFDs) or the CPU/SoC whatever, it woudlnt matter.
> 
> In any case, still no, as with all the other TMIO clock code patches. This
> needs to be done properly.

Hi Ian

Thanks for the review.

I understand your concerns. Of course, the _proper_ solution would be to 
implement an architecture-independent clock API, something like what 
clocklib was trying to do. So, yes, if clocklib were in place now, I 
certainly would have used it.

I searched for those clocklib submission attempts (Dmitry added to CC). 
Last one I can find (maybe I missed some) is from July 2008 - more than a 
year ago. So, looks like our options currently are:

1. wait for new submissions of clocklib - if any are planned
2. develop a completely new arch-independent clock API approach
3. take over patches from Dmitry and bring them to a state acceptable for 
mainline

(any more I missed)

No idea about 1, hopefully, Dmitry can tell if he has any near future 
plans to resubmit his patches.

I personally don't have free (as in beer) time to work on 2 or 3. Anyone?

So, unless we hear, that one of the 1-3 is going to happen real soon now, 
I think, it would be unfair to leave SuperH without a proper MMC driver in 
the mainline for an indefinite time, when one can be trivially achieved.

As for your debugging concern, we could allow configuration-less operation 
only on SuperH in tmio_mmc, how about that?

Thanks
Guennadi
---
Guennadi Liakhovetski
--
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/