linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 5/5] clk: clk-mux: implement remuxing on set

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: <CAD=FV=WvDFQhXMV7PiaMoDN41vcLC3nRL2B8_v=B6h1mCq0Saw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Wed, 12 Jun 2013 10:55:36 -0700
From:	Doug Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>
To:	Mike Turquette <mturquette@...aro.org>
Cc:	Saravana Kannan <skannan@...eaurora.org>,
	James Hogan <james.hogan@...tec.com>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
	Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...eaurora.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 5/5] clk: clk-mux: implement remuxing on set_rate

Mike,

On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 10:45 AM, Mike Turquette <mturquette@...aro.org> wrote:

>> * It seems like we can't make muxing decisions on the SoC level.
>> * Your automatic muxing patches don't hurt me and could be useful for
>> _some_ of the muxing options, just not the top PLL ones.
>
> For the time being you won't be affected by this until you start using
> .determine_rate.  Even then we have the flag which disables this
> behavior.

Yup, exactly!  :)  So I have no objections to the auto remuxing, it
just doesn't solve all of my problems.

>> ...but the only place that leaves me for my muxing needs is the device
>> tree.  ...and as Mike pointed out on IRC the device tree should
>> describe hardware, not policy.  Ick.
>
> This sounds like another vote for configtree ;-)

Yes.  It sounds like for now we're just going to carry some patches to
setup our clocks, but a configtree seems like it would solve this type
of problem.

One question to raise: if we're going to need to come up with a
solution for defining parents for things like PLLs, does it decrease
the need for the auto-remuxing patches?  AKA: if we use some type of
mechanism like configtree to specify muxing, would that be enough?  I
don't know the answer, but just thought I'd raise the question...

-Doug
--
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/