linux-kernel - Re: [RFC,PATCH 1/2] Add a common struct clk

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Fri, 4 Jun 2010 09:43:31 +0800
From:	Jeremy Kerr <jeremy.kerr@...onical.com>
To:	Ben Dooks <ben-linux@...ff.org>
Cc:	"Russell King - ARM Linux" <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
	Ben Herrenchmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [RFC,PATCH 1/2] Add a common struct clk

Hi Ben,

> As an addendum to Russell's comments, we need to specify the behaviour
> with resepect to what happens about clock stabilisation as well, if the
> clock we enabled takes time to stabilise, then should we wait?

Yes. If we're going to the effort of ensuring that the clock is enabled before 
clk_enable returns, we should also guarantee that the clock is fully-
functional.

If that takes some time, then that's just the cost of ensuring correct 
behaviour.

Cheers,


Jeremy
--
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/