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 <>
To:	Sascha Hauer <>
CC:	Paul Walmsley <>,
	Nicolas Pitre <>,,
	Saravana Kannan <>,
	Jeremy Kerr <>,
	Russell King <>,
	Magnus Damm <>,,
	Arnd Bergmann <>,,
	Rob Herring <>,
	Thomas Gleixner <>,,
	Linus Walleij <>,
	Mark Brown <>,
	Stephen Boyd <>,
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)


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


>> 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
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists