linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/3] ARM: OMAP: hwmod: revise deassert sequence

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: <CALLhW=6DNiH4pimWVB3o3uoCp2sC6gqub4_DqE+MB1Chjri8sw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Mon, 20 Aug 2012 20:15:16 -0500
From:	Omar Ramirez Luna <omar.luna@...aro.org>
To:	Benoit Cousson <b-cousson@...com>
Cc:	Vaibhav Hiremath <hvaibhav@...com>, Paul Walmsley <paul@...an.com>,
	Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>,
	Russell King <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
	Kevin Hilman <khilman@...com>,
	Ohad Ben-Cohen <ohad@...ery.com>,
	Tomi Valkeinen <tomi.valkeinen@...com>,
	linux-omap@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] ARM: OMAP: hwmod: revise deassert sequence

Hi Benoit,

On 20 August 2012 05:21, Benoit Cousson <b-cousson@...com> wrote:
> Hi Omar,
>
> On 08/03/2012 05:52 PM, Omar Ramirez Luna wrote:
>> On 3 August 2012 00:24, Vaibhav Hiremath <hvaibhav@...com> wrote:
>>> On 8/3/2012 3:50 AM, Omar Ramirez Luna wrote:
>>>> So in _enable:
>>>>
>>>>         _enable_clocks(oh);
>>>>         if (soc_ops.enable_module)
>>>>                 soc_ops.enable_module(oh);
>>>>
>>>> The enable_module part seems redundant to me, since the module should
>>>> be already enabled by the first call to _enable_clocks.
>>>
>>> Yes they do same thing, I believe the plan is to get rid of all clock
>>> leaf-nodes in the near future, and let hwmod handle module
>>> enable/disable part.
>>
>> If this is the case then an enable_module call is needed in my patch
>> for when these changes are made. The original works fine but only
>> because currently clock framework does what enable_module is doing.
>
> Yes, that's the case, but I plan to remove most of the leaf clocks ASAP,
> so we cannot rely on that.
>
>> Please let me know if you want me to resend with this change.
>
> Yes, could you please repost with that change?

Not a problem.

> It will be good as well that you remove the leaf clock and use the
> parent clock of current leaf as the main_clock. In that case it will
> ensure that this is the hwmod fmwk that does enable the modulemode and
> not the clock fmwk.

Ok, let me try that.

Thanks for the comments,

Omar
--
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/