linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC 3/4] clk: samsung: Add driver to control CLKOUT line on Exynos SoCs

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:	Fri, 16 May 2014 12:52:45 +0200
From:	Tomasz Figa <t.figa@...sung.com>
To:	Rahul Sharma <rahul.sharma@...sung.com>
Cc:	linux-samsung-soc <linux-samsung-soc@...r.kernel.org>,
	Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
	"devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
	Kukjin Kim <kgene.kim@...sung.com>,
	Mike Turquette <mturquette@...aro.org>,
	Pankaj Dubey <pankaj.dubey@...sung.com>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Tomasz Figa <tomasz.figa@...il.com>,
	Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
	Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
	Tushar Behera <tushar.behera@...aro.org>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
	Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@...sung.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 3/4] clk: samsung: Add driver to control CLKOUT line on
 Exynos SoCs

Hi Rahul,

On 16.05.2014 12:39, Rahul Sharma wrote:
> [snip]
>> +       gate->lock = &clkout_lock;
>> +
>> +       mux->reg = reg + EXYNOS_PMU_DEBUG_REG;
>> +       mux->mask = EXYNOS_CLKOUT_MUX_MASK;
>> +       mux->shift = EXYNOS_CLKOUT_MUX_SHIFT;
>> +       mux->lock = &clkout_lock;
>> +
>> +       clk = clk_register_composite(NULL, "clkout", parent_names,
>> +                                       parent_count, &mux->hw,
>> +                                       &clk_mux_ops, NULL, NULL, &gate->hw,
>> +                                       &clk_gate_ops, 0);
>> +       if (IS_ERR(clk))
>> +               goto err_unmap;
>> +
> 
> Hi Tomasz,
> 
> Do we really need a composite clock here? How about registering
> a mux and a gate separately?

What's wrong with a composite clock? It simplifies the code as just a
single clock needs to be registered. I don't see any drawbacks compared
to registering two clocks separately.

Best regards,
Tomasz
--
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/