linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/5] ARM: etm: Don't require clock control

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: <20110203124521.GK9810@sirena.org.uk>
Date:	Thu, 3 Feb 2011 12:45:21 +0000
From:	Mark Brown <broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com>
To:	Arve Hj??nnev??g <arve@...roid.com>
Cc:	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
	Russell King <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...e.de>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Alexander Shishkin <virtuoso@...nd.org>,
	Jason Wessel <jason.wessel@...driver.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] ARM: etm: Don't require clock control

On Wed, Feb 02, 2011 at 06:54:19PM -0800, Arve Hj??nnev??g wrote:
> If clk_get fail, assume the etb does not need a separate clock.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Arve Hj??nnev??g <arve@...roid.com>

Would it not be cleaner for the affected platforms to ensure that
clk_get() does the right thing here, for example by returning a dummy
clock?  Otherwise we'll just silently carry on if we can't get a clock
we were supposed to which doesn't seem ideal.
--
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/