linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 3/5] clk: dt: binding for basic multiplexer 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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <52277DBF.7080104@wwwdotorg.org>
Date:	Wed, 04 Sep 2013 12:36:47 -0600
From:	Stephen Warren <swarren@...dotorg.org>
To:	Mike Turquette <mturquette@...aro.org>
CC:	Kumar Gala <galak@...eaurora.org>, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
	Heiko Stübner <heiko@...ech.de>,
	Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...eaurora.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Tero Kristo <t-kristo@...com>,
	Haojian Zhuang <haojian.zhuang@...aro.org>,
	Matt Sealey <neko@...uhatsu.net>,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 3/5] clk: dt: binding for basic multiplexer clock

On 09/03/2013 05:22 PM, Mike Turquette wrote:
> Quoting Stephen Warren (2013-08-30 14:37:46)
>> On 08/30/2013 02:33 PM, Mike Turquette wrote:
...
>>> The clock _data_ seems to always have some churn to it. Moving it out to
>>> DT reduces that churn from Linux. My concern above is not about kernel
>>> data size.
>>
>> That sounds like the opposite of what we should be doing.
>>
>> It's fine for kernel code/data to change; that's a natural part of
>> development. Obviously, we should minimize churn, through thorough
>> review, domain knowledge, etc.
> 
> And with the "clock mapping" style bindings we'll end up changing both
> the DT binding definition and the kernel. Not great.

What's a "clock mapping" style binding? I guess that means the style
where you have a single DT node that provides multiple clocks, rather
than one DT node per clock?

If the kernel driver changes its internal data, I don't see why that
would have any impact at all on the DT binding definition. We should be
able to use one DT binding definition with arbitrary drivers.

> And I'll respond to your points below but the whole "relocate the
> problem to DT" argument is simply not my main point. What I want to do
> is increase the usefulness of DT by allowing register-level details into
> the binding which can 

Can you expand upon why a DT that encodes register-level details is more
useful? I can't see why there would be any difference in usefulness.

--
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/