linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 12/13] mmc: mmci: add explicit clk control

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: <CAPDyKFqVO2kE4Yv6vx=qi0=i6RCmMHa8GX0hv+docu5mSPgfww@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Wed, 28 May 2014 12:17:26 +0200
From:	Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>
To:	Srinivas Kandagatla <srinivas.kandagatla@...aro.org>
Cc:	Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
	Russell King <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
	linux-mmc <linux-mmc@...r.kernel.org>,
	Chris Ball <chris@...ntf.net>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org" <linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 12/13] mmc: mmci: add explicit clk control

On 28 May 2014 10:28, Srinivas Kandagatla
<srinivas.kandagatla@...aro.org> wrote:
>
>
> On 28/05/14 09:02, Linus Walleij wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 12:39 AM, Srinivas Kandagatla
>> <srinivas.kandagatla@...aro.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 26/05/14 15:21, Ulf Hansson wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 23 May 2014 14:52,  <srinivas.kandagatla@...aro.org> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>>
>>>>> +       bool                    explicit_mclk_control;
>>>>> +       bool                    cclk_is_mclk;
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I can't see why you need to have both these new configurations. Aren't
>>>> "cclk_is_mclk" just a fact when you use "explicit_mclk_control".
>>>
>>>
>>>> I also believe I would prefer something like "qcom_clkdiv" instead.
>>>
>>>
>>> There is a subtle difference between both the flags.  Am happy to change
>>> it
>>> to qcom_clkdiv.
>>
>>
>> I think this was due to me wanting the variant variables to be more about
>> the actual technical difference they indicate rather than pointing to
>> a certain vendor or variant where that difference occurs.
>>
> Yes, that's correct, I think having these two variables seems to be more
> generic than qcom_clkdiv.
>
> I will keep it as it is and fix other comments from Ulf in next version.
>

I think this relates to the discussion we had around fetching the
f_min and f_max in ->probe(). It, just seems silly to have to check
for an extra flag there as well, because that is in principle what
this would mean, right?

So, please adjust to my proposal, I strongly think this should be only
one flag. You might want a more generic name of the flag in favour of
qcom_clkdiv, feel free to change to whatever you think make sense.

Kind regards
Ulf Hansson

>
>> It's a very minor thing though, if you prefer it this way, go for it.
>>
>
> Thanks,
> sirni
>>
>> Yours,
>> Linus Walleij
>>
>
--
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/