linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v11 10/27] iommu/exynos: use managed device helper functions

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:	Thu, 20 Mar 2014 19:03:33 +0900
From:	Cho KyongHo <pullip.cho@...sung.com>
To:	Tomasz Figa <t.figa@...sung.com>
Cc:	Sachin Kamat <sachin.kamat@...aro.org>,
	Linux ARM Kernel <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
	Linux DeviceTree <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux IOMMU <iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
	Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux Samsung SOC <linux-samsung-soc@...r.kernel.org>,
	Antonios Motakis <a.motakis@...tualopensystems.com>,
	Grant Grundler <grundler@...omium.org>,
	Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>,
	Kukjin Kim <kgene.kim@...sung.com>,
	Prathyush <prathyush.k@...sung.com>,
	Rahul Sharma <rahul.sharma@...sung.com>,
	Sylwester Nawrocki <s.nawrocki@...sung.com>,
	Varun Sethi <Varun.Sethi@...escale.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v11 10/27] iommu/exynos: use managed device helper functions

On Wed, 19 Mar 2014 13:08:42 +0100, Tomasz Figa wrote:
> On 19.03.2014 10:01, Sachin Kamat wrote:
> > On 19 March 2014 14:29, Cho KyongHo <pullip.cho@...sung.com> wrote:
> >> On Tue, 18 Mar 2014 16:14:53 +0100, Tomasz Figa wrote:
> >>> On 18.03.2014 12:09, Cho KyongHo wrote:
> >>>> On Fri, 14 Mar 2014 20:52:43 +0530, Sachin Kamat wrote:
> >>>>> Hi KyongHo,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On 14 March 2014 10:35, Cho KyongHo <pullip.cho@...sung.com> wrote:
> >>>>>> This patch uses managed device helper functions in the probe().
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Signed-off-by: Cho KyongHo <pullip.cho@...sung.com>
> >>>>>> ---
> >>>>> [snip]
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> +       data->clk = devm_clk_get(dev, "sysmmu");
> >>>>>> +       if (IS_ERR(data->clk)) {
> >>>>>> +               dev_info(dev, "No gate clock found!\n");
> >>>>>> +               data->clk = NULL;
> >>>>>> +       }
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Why aren't you returning from here upon error?
> >>>>
> >>>> It is for the case of a System MMU which does not need clock gating.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> Are there really such cases?
> >>>
> >>
> >> Yes.
> >> Especially in the case of initial stage of new SoC development.
> >>
> >> I have experianced some software workaround for H/W restriction
> >> needs prevention of clock gating for some devices.
> >
> > So aren't these basically some exceptions/hacks rather than the usual way
> > of functioning of the device?
> >
> 
> This actually raises a good question, whether we really need to support 
> such early development SoC versions in mainline.
> 
> Another thing is that if you need to assure that a clock is ungated, you 
> must acquire it and prepare_enable explicitly, so I don't think this 
> kind of handling is correct.
> 
On early development step of a new SoC, clock related stuffs and
some device drivers like display controller are usually developed in parallel.

In that case, -ENOENT from clk_get() must not treated as an error.
"[PATCH v11 20/17] iommu/exynos: allow having multiple System MMUs for a master H/W"
patch distinguishes -ENOENT from other error values returned by devm_clk_get().

Regards,

KyongHo


--
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/