linux-kernel - Re: [RFC,PATCH 1/3] 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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20110220130737.GE14495@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk>
Date:	Sun, 20 Feb 2011 13:07:37 +0000
From:	Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>
To:	Jeremy Kerr <jeremy.kerr@...onical.com>
Cc:	Saravana Kannan <skannan@...eaurora.org>,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
	Nicolas Pitre <nicolas.pitre@...aro.org>,
	Lorenzo Pieralisi <Lorenzo.Pieralisi@....com>,
	linux-sh@...r.kernel.org,
	Ben Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
	Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@...gutronix.de>,
	Paul Mundt <lethal@...ux-sh.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Dima Zavin <dmitriyz@...gle.com>,
	Ben Dooks <ben-linux@...ff.org>,
	Uwe Kleine-König 
	<u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>,
	Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC,PATCH 1/3] Add a common struct clk

On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 05:33:29PM +0800, Jeremy Kerr wrote:
> Hi Russell,
> 
> > > Why is that? Consider two devices using one clock; one does some
> > > initialisation based on the return value of clk_get_rate(), the other
> > > calls clk_set_rate() some time later. Now the first device is
> > > incorrectly initialised.
> > 
> > What about a clock sourced from a PLL which provides the dotclock for a
> > framebuffer device?  On every mode set, should the clk have to be disabled,
> > unprepared, rate set, re-prepared and re-enabled?
> 
> Sounds heavy-handed, but I honestly have no idea if that's reasonable or not.
> 
> Other options are:
> 
>  * Require that the driver has called clk_prepare, and that prepare_count
>    is 1 during the set_rate call (indicating that this is the only user); or
> 
>  * Leave the set_rate and set_parent semantics as-is and assume that anything
>    calling either knows what it's doing (and that it won't affect other
>    devices)
> 
> Are you OK if we address this separately to the API unification though?

Absolutely.  I think there's enough issues already without adding new
changes on top.  The unification step should do just that - unify.  It
should not introduce new restrictions that are not absolutely necessary
for the unification step.
--
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/