linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] clk: respect the clock dependencies in of_clk

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]

Date:	Sun, 23 Feb 2014 20:41:51 -0300
From:	Ezequiel Garcia <ezequiel.garcia@...e-electrons.com>
To:	Mike Turquette <mturquette@...aro.org>
Cc:	Tomasz Figa <tomasz.figa@...il.com>,
	Gregory CLEMENT <gregory.clement@...e-electrons.com>,
	Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@...e-electrons.com>,
	Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
	Jason Cooper <jason@...edaemon.net>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
	Sebastian Hesselbarth <sebastian.hesselbarth@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] clk: respect the clock dependencies in of_clk_init

Tomasz, Mike:

On Sun, Feb 23, 2014 at 01:20:40PM -0800, Mike Turquette wrote:
> Quoting Tomasz Figa (2014-02-23 10:46:35)
> > On 10.02.2014 18:42, Gregory CLEMENT wrote:
> > > Until now the clock providers were initialized in the order found in
> > > the device tree. This led to have the dependencies between the clocks
> > > not respected: children clocks could be initialized before their
> > > parent clocks.
> > >
> > > Instead of forcing each platform to manage its own initialization order,
> > > this patch adds this work inside the framework itself.
> > >
> > > Using the data of the device tree the of_clk_init function now delayed
> > > the initialization of a clock provider if its parent provider was not
> > > ready yet.
> > 
> > In general this is really great. It's a first step towards sorting out 
> > dependencies between clock providers correctly. I have some comments 
> > inline, though.
> 
> Just to add in here, I think the approach is good but agree with Tomasz'
> review comments.
> 

I'm wondering if any of you has followed the discussion that Greg,
Emilio and I had about the need of this change.

If so, can you point out *why* we need to sort out registration
dependency?
-- 
Ezequiel García, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android Engineering
http://free-electrons.com
--
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/