linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 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]

Message-id: <537DEE61.2050606@samsung.com>
Date:	Thu, 22 May 2014 14:32:33 +0200
From:	Tomasz Figa <t.figa@...sung.com>
To:	Sylwester Nawrocki <s.nawrocki@...sung.com>,
	Tushar Behera <tushar.behera@...aro.org>
Cc:	linux-samsung-soc <linux-samsung-soc@...r.kernel.org>,
	lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	devicetree <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
	Mike Turquette <mturquette@...aro.org>,
	Kukjin Kim <kgene.kim@...sung.com>,
	Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
	Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
	Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@...sung.com>,
	Pankaj Dubey <pankaj.dubey@...sung.com>,
	Rahul Sharma <rahul.sharma@...sung.com>,
	Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
	Tomasz Figa <tomasz.figa@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] clk: samsung: Add driver to control CLKOUT line on
 Exynos SoCs



On 22.05.2014 14:25, Sylwester Nawrocki wrote:
> On 22/05/14 14:01, Tomasz Figa wrote:
>>>>>>>> [ ... ]
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> +    clkout->clk_table[0] = clk_register_composite(NULL, "clkout",
>>>>>>>>>> +                            parent_names, parent_count, &clkout->mux.hw,
>>>>>>>>>> +                            &clk_mux_ops, NULL, NULL, &clkout->gate.hw,
>>>>>>>>>> +                            &clk_gate_ops, CLK_SET_RATE_PARENT
>>>>>>>>>> +                            | CLK_SET_RATE_NO_REPARENT);
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Would you please remove CLK_SET_RATE_NO_REPARENT flag from here? Let me
>>>>>>>> know if you have reservations against this.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The problem with clock reparenting is that there are certain parent
>>>>>> clocks of CLKOUT, rate of which changes at runtime, e.g. clocks derived
>>>>>> from APLL or bus clocks, which can be reconfigured by cpufreq or devfreq.
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> +CC: Sylwester Nawrocki
>>>>
>>>> Okay. But in cases where there is only 1 valid parent clock provided
>>>> through DT (at the moment for Exynos5250/Exynos5420), would it be safe
>>>> to set that clock as the parent of CLKOUT?
>>
>> This is not something to rely on. I have simply omitted remaining CLKOUT
>> parents on Exynos 5 SoCs, as I don't have any board with them on which I
>> could test this. Eventually they will be added.
>>
>>>> Otherwise, this clock is
>>>> not usable ATM.
>>
>> On many boards it is already configured properly by the bootloader.
>> Although I don't see any reason why you couldn't reparent it in
>> (board-specific) sound card driver right now.
> 
> This would require passing the parent's clock specifier in 'clocks'
> property of the sound card device node, which I assume is not something
> we're generally expected to do in mainline. Although some drivers
> happen to be doing it already I think that's a bad example. It sounds
> like an abuse of the current clock bindings.

Well, an already board-specific driver might have some knowledge of the
SoC, so it might not be a huge problem, but I agree that this is not an
optimal solution.

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/