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]

Message-ID: <CAJuYYwSWL9e+php9B2bJ4GQ9AGLK32=q+0pFeSNHUMfhFNruoQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Mon, 8 Oct 2012 12:02:15 +0530
From:	Thomas Abraham <thomas.abraham@...aro.org>
To:	Tomasz Figa <t.figa@...sung.com>
Cc:	chander.kashyap@...aro.org, 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
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] ARM: Exynos4: Migrate to common clock framework.

Hi Tomasz,

Thanks for reviewing this patch series.

On 3 October 2012 16:26, Tomasz Figa <t.figa@...sung.com> wrote:
> 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.

Ok. I got the sequence wrong and I have fixed this in the next version.

>
> 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.

Right.

>
> 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)?

The non-dt Exynos4 platforms require some effort to get basic device
tree support into them. Until then, the common clock support for them
are required. I have added device tree support as well in the second
version of this patch series.

Thanks,
Thomas.

>
> 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/