linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] MIPS: Alchemy: common clock framework integration

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAOLZvyH810_0yp=CaQjxYianguS++iXOmq6ZEW2FWRPDxZMW2g@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Wed, 2 Jul 2014 11:29:27 +0200
From:	Manuel Lauss <manuel.lauss@...il.com>
To:	Mike Turquette <mturquette@...aro.org>
Cc:	Linux-MIPS <linux-mips@...ux-mips.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] MIPS: Alchemy: common clock framework integration

Hi Mike,

On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 7:20 AM, Mike Turquette <mturquette@...aro.org> wrote:
> Quoting Manuel Lauss (2014-06-29 09:57:35)
>> Expose chip-internal configurable clocks to the common clk framework,
>> and fix a few drivers to take advantage of it.
>
> Thanks for the patch series! Both patches cover a lot of ground, but
> I'll focus on #2. It would be best to split the driver changes out

I sent the first one along because the second doesn't compile without it.


> separately. You can introduce the common clk changes but not compile
> them in, then change the drivers, then add the logic to compile the new
> common clock driver all as separate patches.

I'll split them into pure clock framework and enablement parts.


> Additionally, it would be cool to push this driver out to drivers/clk/
> if you are so inclined. It looks like your header dependencies are not
> so bad as to make that task impossible. Just a suggestion from me.

This clock framework is for a single line of MIPS SoCs which are no longer
being developed by the manufacturer and I don't think it is reusable for any
other soc line currently in existence.  I'd like to keep it within the mips tree
for that reason.  (I find the ARM way of sprinkling the whole tree with
a single driver for each iteration of each custom on-chip peripheral on
each ARM chip [exaggerated of course] quite messy.   But that's just me).

Manuel
--
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/