| 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
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 26 May 2015 15:38:29 -0700 From: Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net> To: York Sun <yorksun@...escale.com> Cc: linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, lee.jones@...aro.org, andrey@...hel.com, sebastian.hesselbarth@...il.com, rabeeh@...id-run.com Subject: Re: clock driver On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 12:12:11PM -0700, York Sun wrote: > Linux experts, > > I have rewritten a driver for Silicon Labs SI5338 programmable clock chip. The > original driver was written by Andrey (CC'ed), but was floatingn outside of the > kernel. The driver was written to use sysfs as the interface, not the common > clock framework. I wonder if I have to rewrite the driver following common clock > framework. One concern is to support a feature to accept ClockBuilder (TM) > output on sysfs. I don't see sysfs support on common clock framework. Please > correct me if I am wrong. > > If not using common clock framework is acceptable, I would like to send a RFC > patch for review. > My original driver for si570 was rejected because it didn't support the clock framework, so you might face an uphill battle. SI provides a document for SI5338 describing how to configure it without using clockbuilder [1]. Can that be used to implement generic code which doesn't need clockbuilder ? Guenter --- [1] https://www.silabs.com/Support%20Documents/TechnicalDocs/Si5338-RM.pdf -- 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists