linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH] clk: add extension 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: <20120531082309.GP8026@tbergstrom-lnx.Nvidia.com>
Date:	Thu, 31 May 2012 11:23:09 +0300
From:	Peter De Schrijver <pdeschrijver@...dia.com>
To:	Saravana Kannan <skannan@...eaurora.org>
CC:	Mike Turquette <mturquette@...com>,
	Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...eaurora.org>,
	Russell King <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] clk: add extension API

On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 05:29:54AM +0200, Saravana Kannan wrote:
> On 05/30/2012 12:40 PM, Mike Turquette wrote:
> > On 20120530-01:52, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> >> On 5/29/2012 2:58 AM, Peter De Schrijver wrote:
> >>> Add an extension API for clocks. This allows clocktypes to provide extensions
> >>> for features which are uncommon and cannot be easily mapped onto normal clock
> >>> framework concecpts. eg: resetting blocks, configuring clock phase etc.
> >>
> >> This seems rather generic. Why not add more specific APIs/concepts like
> >> clk_reset(), clk_set_phase(), etc.? If they don't map, maybe we should
> >> make them map.
> >>
> >
> > I also wonder if exposing some of these knobs should be done in the
> > basic clock types.  Meaning that instead of having additional calls in
> > the clk.h API those calls could be exposed by the basic clock types that
> > map to the actions.
> >
> > The question that needs to be answered is this: do generic drivers need
> > access to these additional functions (clk.h) or just the platform code
> > which implements some of the clock logic (basic clock types&
> > platform-speciic clock types).
> 
> One of the main reason for the common clock framework is so that each 
> platform doesn't have it's own extension and have mostly similar code 
> repeat all over the place. So, having clock APIs outside of clk.h 
> doesn't make sense when we look at the direction we want the code base 
> to proceed in.

I don't think this will lead to 'mostly similar code repeat all over the
place'. I don't know of any intree SoC which has a similar requirement.
So which code duplication would this cause?

Cheers,

Peter.
--
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/