linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/2] Common struct clk implementation, v14

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:	Wed, 20 Apr 2011 18:41:04 +0200 (CEST)
From:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:	Uwe Kleine-König 
	<u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>
cc:	Paul Mundt <lethal@...ux-sh.org>,
	Nicolas Pitre <nicolas.pitre@...aro.org>,
	Lorenzo Pieralisi <Lorenzo.Pieralisi@....com>,
	Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
	linux-sh@...r.kernel.org,
	Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
	Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@...gutronix.de>,
	lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Dima Zavin <dmitriyz@...gle.com>,
	Saravana Kannan <skannan@...eaurora.org>,
	Ben Dooks <ben-linux@...ff.org>,
	Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
	Jeremy Kerr <jeremy.kerr@...onical.com>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] Common struct clk implementation, v14

On Wed, 20 Apr 2011, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> I declare this to be stable, so assuming people are OK with it, you can
> use that as a base to convert your platforms.

You declare that stable? Interesting.

> There is a 2nd branch on that repository that also contains my RFC patch
> just sent to this list in case you want to test it.

Which is utter crap as I pointed out a few minutes ago.

Also that clk thing is neither stable nor complete. It's just designed
wrong. 

As long as it does not handle nested clocks proper and by default w/o
your tasteless add ons, it's just moving the status quo of ARM into a
common infrastructure file.

Yes, that's probably better than not having common infrastructure at
all, but trying to build up conversions on that lot would be a
complete waste of time and resources. Simply because you need to
convert the already converted stuff another time.

Thanks,

	tglx