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  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]
Date:	Fri, 9 Mar 2012 01:51:36 +0100 (CET)
From:	Thomas Gleixner <>
To:	"Turquette, Mike" <>
cc:	Sascha Hauer <>,
	Andrew Lunn <>, Paul Walmsley <>,,
	Linus Walleij <>,, Stephen Boyd <>,
	Mark Brown <>,
	Magnus Damm <>,,
	Rob Herring <>,
	Richard Zhao <>,
	Grant Likely <>,
	Deepak Saxena <>,
	Saravana Kannan <>,
	Shawn Guo <>,
	Amit Kucheria <>,
	Russell King <>,
	Jeremy Kerr <>,
	Arnd Bergman <>,
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 3/4] clk: introduce the common clock framework

On Wed, 7 Mar 2012, Turquette, Mike wrote:
> Assuming that some day OMAP code can be refactored to allow for lazy
> (or at least initcall-based) registration of clocks then perhaps your
> suggestion can take root.  Which leads me to this question: are there
> any other platforms out there that require the level of expose to
> struct clk present in this patchset?  OMAP does, for now, but if that
> changes then I need to know if others require this as well.

I can't see the problem, really. Other than existing code doing stuff
before the memory allocator is up and running.

We allocate interrupt data structures in the early boot process today
and I don't see a reason why you want clocks, which have not been
configured by the boot loader, accesible before that point.


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists