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:	Tue, 17 Jun 2014 23:51:20 +0200
From:	Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>
To:	Peter De Schrijver <pdeschrijver@...dia.com>
Cc:	Stephen Warren <swarren@...dotorg.org>,
	Mikko Perttunen <mperttunen@...dia.com>,
	"tj@...nel.org" <tj@...nel.org>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org" <linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-ide@...r.kernel.org" <linux-ide@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/9] ARM: tegra: Export tegra_powergate_power_on

On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 05:01:46PM +0300, Peter De Schrijver wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 02:13:15PM +0200, Thierry Reding wrote:
> > * PGP Signed by an unknown key
> > 
> > On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 04:01:02PM -0600, Stephen Warren wrote:
> > > On 06/04/2014 05:32 AM, Mikko Perttunen wrote:
> > > > This symbol needs to be exported to power on rails without using
> > > > tegra_powergate_sequence_power_up. tegra_powergate_sequence_power_up
> > > > cannot be used in situations where the driver wants to handle clocking
> > > > by itself.
> > > 
> > > Thierry, are you OK with this change?
> > 
> > I would've preferred tegra_powergate_sequence_power_up() to be used
> 
> I don't think the current tegra_powergate_sequence_power_up() API is very well
> defined though. I don't think the clocks and resets required by the sequence
> should be provided by the driver. For one, there can be several clocks and
> resets that need to be controlled for a single domain.

Do you have any suggestions for what the API should look like? Even if
we plan to move to some different API, I think there's some advantage in
using it consistently if for no other reason than to make it easier to
replace occurrences later on.

Thierry

Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ