linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v7 1/3] Documentation: common clk API

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: <4F6A2EF5.3010008@codeaurora.org>
Date:	Wed, 21 Mar 2012 12:41:41 -0700
From:	Saravana Kannan <skannan@...eaurora.org>
To:	Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>
CC:	Mark Brown <broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com>,
	Paul Walmsley <paul@...an.com>,
	Nicolas Pitre <nicolas.pitre@...aro.org>,
	Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@...gutronix.de>,
	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
	Amit Kucheria <amit.kucheria@...aro.org>,
	linaro-dev@...ts.linaro.org,
	Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
	Grant Likely <grant.likely@...retlab.ca>,
	Jeremy Kerr <jeremy.kerr@...onical.com>,
	Mike Turquette <mturquette@...com>,
	Mike Turquette <mturquette@...aro.org>,
	Magnus Damm <magnus.damm@...il.com>,
	Deepak Saxena <dsaxena@...aro.org>, patches@...aro.org,
	Rob Herring <rob.herring@...xeda.com>,
	Russell King <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Richard Zhao <richard.zhao@...aro.org>,
	Shawn Guo <shawn.guo@...escale.com>,
	Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...ricsson.com>,
	Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...eaurora.org>,
	linux-omap@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 1/3] Documentation: common clk API

On 03/21/2012 12:33 PM, Tony Lindgren wrote:
> * Mark Brown<broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com>  [120321 12:11]:
>> On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 11:38:58AM -0700, Saravana Kannan wrote:
>>
>>>> So it would be interesting to know more about why you (or anyone else)
>>>> perceive that the Kconfig changes would be harmful.
>>
>>> But the enthusiasm of the clock driver developers doesn't
>>> necessarily translate to users of the clock APIs (other driver
>>> devs). My worry with marking it as experimental in Kconfig and to a
>>> certain extent in the documentation is that it will discourage the
>>> driver devs from switching to the new APIs. If no one is using the
>>> new APIs, then platforms can't switch to the common clock framework
>>
>> These aren't new APIs, the clock API has been around since forever.

I disagree. When I say clock API, I mean the actual functions and their 
semantics. Not the existence of a header file.

The meaning of clk_enable/disable has been changed and they won't work 
without calling clk_prepare/unprepare. So, these are definitely new 
APIs. If it weren't new APIs, then none of the general drivers would 
need to change.

>> For driver authors working on anything that isn't platform specific the
>> issue has been that it's not implemented at all on the overwhelming
>> majority of architectures and those that do all have their own random
>> implementations with their own random quirks and with no ability for
>> anything except the platform to even try to do incredibly basic stuff
>> like register a new clock.
>>
>> Simply having something, anything, in place even if it's going to churn
>> is a massive step forward here for people working with clocks.
>
> Right, and now at least the people reading this thread are pretty
> aware of the yet unsolved issues with clock fwk api :)

:-) Shhh... not so loud!

-Saravana


-- 
Sent by an employee of the Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc.
The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum.
--
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/