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  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, 16 Mar 2012 19:54:43 -0500
From:	Rob Herring <robherring2@...il.com>
To:	Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@...gutronix.de>
CC:	Paul Walmsley <paul@...an.com>,
	Nicolas Pitre <nicolas.pitre@...aro.org>,
	linaro-dev@...ts.linaro.org,
	Saravana Kannan <skannan@...eaurora.org>,
	Jeremy Kerr <jeremy.kerr@...onical.com>,
	Russell King <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
	Magnus Damm <magnus.damm@...il.com>,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, patches@...aro.org,
	Rob Herring <rob.herring@...xeda.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	linux-omap@...r.kernel.org,
	Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...ricsson.com>,
	Mark Brown <broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com>,
	Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...eaurora.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 1/3] Documentation: common clk API

On 03/16/2012 06:47 PM, Sascha Hauer wrote:
> Hi Paul,
> 
> On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 04:21:17PM -0600, Paul Walmsley wrote:
>> Hi
>>
>> On Fri, 16 Mar 2012, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>>
>>
>> If the common clock code is to go upstream now, it should be marked as 
>> experimental.
> 
> No, please don't do this. This effectively marks the architectures using
> the generic clock framework experimental. We can mark drivers as 'you
> have been warned', but marking an architecture as experimental is the
> wrong sign for both its users and people willing to adopt the framework.
> Also we get this:
> 
> warning: (ARCH_MX1 && MACH_MX21 && ARCH_MX25 && MACH_MX27) selects COMMON_CLK which has unmet direct dependencies (EXPERIMENTAL)
> 
> (and no, I don't want to support to clock frameworks in parallel)
> 

+1

For simple users at least, the api is perfectly adequate and it is not
experimental (unless new means experimental).

Rob

>> This is because we know the API is not well-defined, and 
>> that both the API and the underlying mechanics will almost certainly need 
>> to change for non-trivial uses of the rate changing code (e.g., DVFS with 
>> external I/O devices).
> 
> Please leave DVFS out of the game. DVFS will use the clock framework for
> the F part and the regulator framework for the V part, but the clock
> framework should not get extended with DVFS features. The notifiers we
> currently have in the clock framework should give enough information
> for DVFS implementations. Even if they don't and we have to change
> something here this will have no influence on the architectures
> implementing their clock tree with the common clock framework.
> 
> Sascha
> 

--
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/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists