linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC v9 01/20] clk: divider: Correct parent clk round rate if no bestdiv is normally found

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: <54DE0BB8.7070004@ti.com>
Date:	Fri, 13 Feb 2015 16:35:36 +0200
From:	Tomi Valkeinen <tomi.valkeinen@...com>
To:	Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@...gutronix.de>
CC:	Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
	Liu Ying <Ying.Liu@...escale.com>,
	<dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>, <stefan.wahren@...e.com>,
	<devicetree@...r.kernel.org>, <kernel@...gutronix.de>,
	<sboyd@...eaurora.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	<a.hajda@...sung.com>, <andy.yan@...k-chips.com>,
	<mturquette@...aro.org>, <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC v9 01/20] clk: divider: Correct parent clk round rate
 if no bestdiv is normally found

On 12/02/15 15:41, Sascha Hauer wrote:

> Tomis patch is based on the assumption that clk_set_rate(clk_round_rate(rate))
> is equal to clk_round_rate(rate). So when this assumption is wrong then
> it should simply be reverted.

When is it not equal?

I agree that doing clk_set_rate(clk, clk_round_rate(clk, rate)) is
pointless, but shouldn't it still work?

And we can forget about clk_round_rate. Without my patch, this would
behave oddly also:

rate = clk_get_rate(clk);
clk_set_rate(clk, rate);

The end result could be something else than 'rate'.

 Tomi



Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (820 bytes)