| 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: <1698879.DLaB5pbe5M@avalon>
Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2013 01:58:17 +0200
From: Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@...asonboard.com>
To: Luciano Coelho <coelho@...com>
Cc: mturquette@...aro.org, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
balbi@...com, "grant.likely@...aro.org" <grant.likely@...aro.org>,
"rob.herring@...xeda.com" <rob.herring@...xeda.com>,
"devicetree-discuss@...ts.ozlabs.org"
<devicetree-discuss@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
"linux-doc@...r.kernel.org" <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-omap@...r.kernel.org" <linux-omap@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org" <linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-arm@...r.kernel.org" <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Documentation: dt: bindings: TI WiLink modules
Hi Luciano,
On Monday 01 July 2013 15:39:30 Luciano Coelho wrote:
> On Fri, 2013-06-28 at 16:21 +0300, Luciano Coelho wrote:
> > On Fri, 2013-06-28 at 15:18 +0300, Felipe Balbi wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 03:13:52PM +0300, Luciano Coelho wrote:
> > > > On Fri, 2013-06-28 at 14:41 +0300, Felipe Balbi wrote:
> > > > > On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 02:22:11PM +0300, Luciano Coelho wrote:
> > > > > > On Fri, 2013-06-28 at 13:31 +0300, Luciano Coelho wrote:
> > > > > > > (fixed Mike's address)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Fri, 2013-06-28 at 11:21 +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 10:53:35AM +0100, Luciano Coelho
wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Fri, 2013-06-28 at 10:38 +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 09:35:30AM +0100, Luciano Coelho
wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > +Optional properties:
> > > > > > > > > > > +--------------------
> > > > > > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > > > > > +- refclock: the internal WLAN reference clock frequency
> > > > > > > > > > > (required for
> > > > > > > > > > > + WiLink6 and WiLink7; not used for WiLink8). Must be
> > > > > > > > > > > one of the
> > > > > > > > > > > + following:
> > > > > > > > > > > + 0 = 19.2 MHz
> > > > > > > > > > > + 1 = 26.0 MHz
> > > > > > > > > > > + 2 = 38.4 MHz
> > > > > > > > > > > + 3 = 52.0 MHz
> > > > > > > > > > > + 4 = 38.4 MHz, XTAL
> > > > > > > > > > > + 5 = 26.0 MHz, XTAL
> > > > > > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > > > > > +- tcxoclock: the internal WLAN TCXO clock frequency
> > > > > > > > > > > (required for
> > > > > > > > > > > + WiLink7 not used for WiLink6 and WiLink8). Must be
> > > > > > > > > > > one of the
> > > > > > > > > > > + following:
> > > > > > > > > > > + 0 = 19.200 MHz
> > > > > > > > > > > + 1 = 26.000 MHz
> > > > > > > > > > > + 2 = 38.400 MHz
> > > > > > > > > > > + 3 = 52.000 MHz
> > > > > > > > > > > + 4 = 16.368 MHz
> > > > > > > > > > > + 5 = 32.736 MHz
> > > > > > > > > > > + 6 = 16.800 MHz
> > > > > > > > > > > + 7 = 33.600 MHz
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > This looks suspiciously like what we have the common clock
> > > > > > > > > > bindings for:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > refclk {
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > compatible = "fixed-clock";
> > > > > > > > > > #clock-cells = <0>;
> > > > > > > > > > clock-frequency = <19200000>;
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > }
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > wilink {
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > compatible = "ti,wilink7";
> > > > > > > > > > interrupt-parent = <&some_interrupt_controller>;
> > > > > > > > > > interrupts = <0 1 1>;
> > > > > > > > > > clocks = <&refclk>, <&refclk>;
> > > > > > > > > > clock-names = "refclk", "txoclk";
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > };
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Could you not use them?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Hmmm... this actually does look good. But these are
> > > > > > > > > internal clocks in the modules, they cannot be accessed from
> > > > > > > > > outside. Does it make sense to register them with the clock
> > > > > > > > > framework?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Given we already have a common way of describing clocks, I
> > > > > > > > think it makes sense to use it -- people already understand
> > > > > > > > the common bindings, and it's less code to add add to the
> > > > > > > > kernel. I don't think the fact these clocks are internal
> > > > > > > > should prevent us from describing them as we would an external
> > > > > > > > clock.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Yes, I agree with you. Thanks for the suggestion! I think it
> > > > > > > will look much better. And now that I dug a bit more into the
> > > > > > > code, I can see that there are only structs being populated, so
> > > > > > > there shouldn't be any other side-effects.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hmmm, one thing that escaped me. Besides the frequency, I also
> > > > > > need a boolean that tells if the clock is XTAL or not. I can't
> > > > > > figure out how to pass this if I use the generic clock framework.
> > > > > > Any suggestions?
> > > > >
> > > > > Could you use clock-output-names for that ?
> > > > >
> > > > > XTAL clock:
> > > > >
> > > > > refclk {
> > > > >
> > > > > compatible = "fixed-clock";
> > > > > #clock cells = <0>;
> > > > > clock-frequency = <19200000>;
> > > > > clock-output-names = "xtal";
> > > > >
> > > > > };
> > > > >
> > > > > non-XTAL clock:
> > > > >
> > > > > refclk {
> > > > >
> > > > > compatible = "fixed-clock";
> > > > > #clock cells = <0>;
> > > > > clock-frequency = <19200000>;
> > > > > clock-output-names = "osc"; /* any better name ? */
> > > > >
> > > > > };
> > > >
> > > > This starts looking a bit hacky. Using the output name as a flag is
> > > > not very pretty.
> > > >
> > > > I think it would be better to have a separate flag for it in the wlan
> > > > node. Like an optional "refclock-xtal" boolean or something. The
> > > > downside of this is that we would be adding information about the
> > > > clock details in the wilink node. :(
> > > >
> > > > OTOH, we could add a flag to the generic clock binding? A new optional
> > > > boolean that tells whether the clock is XTAL or not:
> > > >
> > > > refclk {
> > > >
> > > > compatible = "fixed-clock";
> > > > #clock cells = <0>;
> > > > clock-frequency = <19200000>;
> > > > clock-xtal;
> > > >
> > > > };
> > > >
> > > > Do you think that would make sense?
> > >
> > > sure, that looks alright to me. Surely there are other devices out there
> > > who want to know if the clock comes from a crystal or not ?!?
> >
> > Mike, what do you think about this idea? If it sounds okay to you, I can
> > cook up a patch adding this flag.
>
> Hmmm... I started implementing this whole thing, but using these clocks
> as "fixed-clock"s is not so straightforward. The problem is that I
> would need to register my driver as a clock provider and add the OF
> match for "fixed-clock".
>
> If I do that, all the other "fixed-clock" nodes would be passed to my
> driver too, which is wrong. Or, the platform should register the
> "fixed-clock" match, but this would be wrong too, since it would find
> *my* fixed-clocks.
>
> The only thing I can come up with is to make a small clock driver (maybe
> even inside the WiLink module itself) that registers a new type of
> clock, "ti,wilink-clock" or something. But this would really be
> overkill, wouldn't it?
>
> Any other ideas?
One possibility would be to just call clk_get_rate() on the clock from the
WiLink driver, which would return the fixed frequency specified in DT, and
configure the WiLink hardware accordingly. This might be a bit hackish though.
--
Regards,
Laurent Pinchart
--
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