linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] i2c: tegra: use clk_disable_unprepare in place of clk

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <4FEB2DD8.4090904@nvidia.com>
Date:	Wed, 27 Jun 2012 21:29:20 +0530
From:	Laxman Dewangan <ldewangan@...dia.com>
To:	Stephen Warren <swarren@...dotorg.org>
CC:	"w.sang@...gutronix.de" <w.sang@...gutronix.de>,
	"khali@...ux-fr.org" <khali@...ux-fr.org>,
	Stephen Warren <swarren@...dia.com>,
	"linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org" <linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Prashant Gaikwad <pgaikwad@...dia.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] i2c: tegra: use clk_disable_unprepare in place of clk_disable

On Tuesday 26 June 2012 09:58 PM, Stephen Warren wrote:
> On 06/26/2012 12:27 AM, Laxman Dewangan wrote:
>> On Monday 25 June 2012 09:25 PM, Stephen Warren wrote:
>>> On 06/25/2012 03:46 AM, Laxman Dewangan wrote:
>>>> Stephen,
>>>>
>>>> On Wednesday 20 June 2012 09:57 PM, Stephen Warren wrote:
>>>>> On 06/20/2012 10:26 AM, Stephen Warren wrote:
>>>>>> On 06/20/2012 06:56 AM, Laxman Dewangan wrote:
>>>>>>> Use clk_disable_unprepare() inplace of clk_disable().
>>>>>>> This was missed as part of moving clock enable/disable to
>>>>>>> prepare/unprepare for using the common clock framework.
>>>>> ...
>>>>>> I see no reason not to take the second patch in the series through the
>>>>>> I2C tree though.
>>>>> Uggh. Ignore that paragraph - the other patch was sent separately
>>>>> not as
>>>>> a series.
>>>> so are you taking care of this patch or do I need to send the patch
>>>> based on your tree in place of linux-next?
>>> Yes, this patch should be applied through the Tegra tree, since it will
>>> be a dependency of the common clock framework switchover there, which I
>>> hope to take place this kernel cycle.
>>>
>>> I did just attempt to apply this patch to the for-3.6/common-clk branch,
>>> but it doesn't apply:-( Could you please rebase and resend. Thanks.
>> Looked at your common_clk branch and the related code is not there.
>> The clk_disable() in the particular case is introduced by change
>> i2c: tegra: make all resource allocation through devm_*
>> which is not in your branch.
>>
>> Then later Prashant post the change as
>> i2c: tegra: Add clk_prepare/clk_unprepare
>> and it does not accounted for the above patch.
>>
>> So none of your local tree will have this issue.
> OK. In that case, it's best if this patch goes through the I2C tree
> since that's where the code is that it's modifying. This might not be
> optimal for runtime git bisection depending on the order Linus ends up
> merging things, but it's probably as good as we can do without
> inter-twining the I2C and Tegra trees a lot.


Then it can go Wolfram's tree along with other patch
  i2c: tegra: remove unused member variable.

as some of previous i2c patches are in his tree.
--
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/