linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 21/33] clk: ux500: Add Device Tree support for the PRCC Kernel clock

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: <20130827082326.GE6152@lee--X1>
Date:	Tue, 27 Aug 2013 09:23:26 +0100
From:	Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>
To:	Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
Cc:	"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
	Linus WALLEIJ <linus.walleij@...ricsson.com>,
	Srinidhi KASAGAR <srinidhi.kasagar@...ricsson.com>,
	Mike Turquette <mturquette@...aro.org>,
	Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 21/33] clk: ux500: Add Device Tree support for the PRCC
 Kernel clock

On Fri, 23 Aug 2013, Linus Walleij wrote:

> On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 11:21 AM, Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org> wrote:
> 
> >> I really do not like the approach of uglifying something and then
> >> beautifying it later... I prefer each step in isolation to be good
> >> looking, or you will be confused when traversing the history.
> >
> > So then we have a few options, some more realistic than others.
> >
> > 1. Duplicate each of the; clk_reg_prcmu_*(), clk_reg_prcc_pclk(),
> > clk_reg_prcc_kclk() calls into your proposed u8500_clk_init_dt(),
> > which, while keeping everything separate would be unrealistic.
> 
> I think this is perfectly realistic.
> 
> You're not going to duplicate each clk_register_clkdev(),
> which makes it way smaller than the original function,
> and since one of the function will be inside a
> 
> #ifdef CONFIG_OF
> #endif
> 
> After we switch the entire platform to DT-only it will be pretty
> obvious which big chunk of code that needs to go away, it's
> a clean cut.
> 
> (Note: I know the #ifdef CONFIG_OF is not necessary anymore
> since we switched to multiplatform, but I intend that marker for
> humans, not machines.)

This sounds gross. To duplicate; u8500_clk_init(), u8540_clk_init()
and u9540_clk_init() just for the sake of loading a few pointers into
an array for a small part of the development cycle sounds obscene.

I genuinely think keeping the current patch in this series and then
removing the clk_register_clkdev() in the remove ATAG support series
is the best way to go.

If you think I'm wrong then I'll so as you ask however. Just pass me
the sick bucket.

-- 
Lee Jones
Linaro ST-Ericsson Landing Team Lead
Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog
--
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/