| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <CAKohpokDscKxhpKjdkbU+Q95VQPF-bDviyL3LAcbgeaQWk6ERw@mail.gmail.com> Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2012 13:55:29 +0530 From: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org> To: Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...onic-design.de> Cc: Shiraz Hashim <shiraz.hashim@...com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, spear-devel@...t.st.com, Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@...afoo.de> Subject: Re: [PATCH V3] PWM: Add SPEAr PWM chip driver support On 22 October 2012 13:25, Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...onic-design.de> wrote: > We could probably do that in the core. I've had some discussions about > this with Lars-Peter (Cc'ed) who also had doubts about how this is > currently handled. > > What you're proposing is different, however. If we put that code in the > core it will mean that once the module is unloaded, all PWM devices will > be disabled. There is currently code in the core that prevents the chip > from being removed if one or more PWM devices are busy. But as explained > above, with the current core code this return value isn't useful at all. This is what many drivers in pwm framework are doing currently too.. They disable pwm and its clock and then do chip remove. Sorry, i didn't get the conclusion completely :( Should we keep code suggested by me in core or spear's driver? -- viresh -- 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists