linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 1/7] clk: tegra: Add support for PLLSS

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20131017075743.GQ5643@tbergstrom-lnx.Nvidia.com>
Date:	Thu, 17 Oct 2013 10:57:43 +0300
From:	Peter De Schrijver <pdeschrijver@...dia.com>
To:	Stephen Warren <swarren@...dotorg.org>
CC:	Prashant Gaikwad <pgaikwad@...dia.com>,
	Mike Turquette <mturquette@...aro.org>,
	Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
	"linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org" <linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/7] clk: tegra: Add support for PLLSS

On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 07:21:12PM +0200, Stephen Warren wrote:
> On 10/16/2013 01:48 AM, Peter De Schrijver wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 10:20:03PM +0200, Stephen Warren wrote:
> >> On 10/15/2013 09:14 AM, Peter De Schrijver wrote:
> >>> Tegra124 introduces a new PLL type, PLLSS. Add support for it.
> >>
> >>> diff --git a/drivers/clk/tegra/clk-pll.c b/drivers/clk/tegra/clk-pll.c
> >>
> >>
> >>> +static int clk_pllss_set_rate(struct clk_hw *hw, unsigned long rate,
> >>> +				unsigned long parent_rate)
> >>
> >> This function seems pretty generic. Is it possible to share a bit more
> >> code with any of the other pllXXX_set_rate() functions?
> >>
> >>> +struct clk *tegra_clk_register_pllss(const char *name, const char *parent_name,
> >>> +				void __iomem *clk_base, unsigned long flags,
> >>> +				struct tegra_clk_pll_params *pll_params,
> >>> +				spinlock_t *lock)
> >>
> >>> +	val = pll_readl_base(pll);
> >>> +	if (val & PLLSS_REF_SRC_SEL_MASK) {
> >>> +		WARN(1, "Unknown parent selected for %s: %d\n", name,
> >>> +			(val & PLLSS_REF_SRC_SEL_MASK) >>
> >>> +			PLLSS_REF_SRC_SEL_SHIFT);
> >>> +		kfree(pll);
> >>> +		return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL);
> >>> +	}
> >>
> >> If there's a field in HW that muxes the clock input between n clocks,
> >> why does this function assume there's a single parent for this PLL, by
> >> taking a "const char *parent_name" parameter?
> >>
> >> What happens if the bootloader changed this field in HW; is the kernel
> >> simply not able to boot?
> >>
> > 
> > This logic comes from downstream. I guess it means we're running in an
> > unvalidated configuration. Do you think we should expose all parents 
> > anyway? Even if not all configurations have been validated?
> > (which is quite likely)
> 
> If we only support one particular parent, why not force the register
> field to the desired value, rather than failing?

Sounds reasonable indeed. I will do that in the next version.

Cheers,

Peter.
--
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/