linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/2] ARM: Exynos4: Migrate to common clock framework.

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]

Date:	Wed, 03 Oct 2012 09:26:50 +0200
From:	Tomasz Figa <t.figa@...sung.com>
To:	chander.kashyap@...aro.org
Cc:	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
	linux-samsung-soc@...r.kernel.org, kgene.kim@...sung.com,
	mturquette@...aro.org, mturquette@...com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Thomas Abraham <thomas.abraham@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] ARM: Exynos4: Migrate to common clock framework.

Hi Chander, Thomas,

On Monday 01 of October 2012 17:39:19 chander.kashyap@...aro.org wrote:
> From: Thomas Abraham <thomas.abraham@...aro.org>
> 
> This patch series migrates Exynos4 clock support to common clock
> framework. The first patch in this series removes the existing Exynos4
> clock support that uses the Samsung specific clock framework. The second
> patch in this series add Exynos4 clock support using common clock
> framework.
> 
> Thomas Abraham (2):
>   ARM: Exynos4: Remove Samsung clock type support
>   ARM: Exynos4: Register clocks via common clock framework

I think the order of changes is a little bit off here:
 - patch 1 will break all exynos4-based boards (what about bisects?)
 - patch 2 will be still broken until all related drivers get converted to 
use clk_prepare(_enable) and clk_(disable_)unprepare.

Shouldn't the order be exactly opposite, i.e.:
 - all the patches for prepare/unprepare first
 - then the patch adding common clock frameworks support for exynos4 
(disabling the old clock code)
 - and finally the patch removing remaining (disabled by previous patch) 
code.

Also, I assume that these patches doesn't consider native device tree 
support (without auxdata, using OF-based clock lookup), correct me if I'm 
wrong. If I'm right, since Exynos SoCs are going to be DT-only, is there 
really a point for adding common clock framework support for non-DT 
platforms (which are going to be eventually dropped anyway)?

Best regards,
-- 
Tomasz Figa
Samsung Poland R&D Center

--
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/