linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 4/5] clk: qcom: Add RPM clock controller driver

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]

Date:	Fri, 27 Nov 2015 08:24:30 -0800
From:	Bjorn Andersson <bjorn@...o.se>
To:	Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...eaurora.org>
Cc:	Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@...ymobile.com>,
	Georgi Djakov <georgi.djakov@...aro.org>,
	"agross@...eaurora.org" <agross@...eaurora.org>,
	"mturquette@...libre.com" <mturquette@...libre.com>,
	"linux-clk@...r.kernel.org" <linux-clk@...r.kernel.org>,
	"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 v4 4/5] clk: qcom: Add RPM clock controller driver

On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 4:59 PM, Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...eaurora.org> wrote:
> On 11/21, Bjorn Andersson wrote:
>> On Fri 20 Nov 16:39 PST 2015, Stephen Boyd wrote:
[..]
>> Do you foresee that there will be an implementation of the generic rpmcc
>> or is it just a way to "standardize" the dt binding?
>>
>
> I don't see any problem with implementing the RPM clock
> controller as one file or two files (one for platform bus based
> RPM modules and one for SMD bus RPM modules). The compatible can
> be the same for both struct driver instances, while the bus will
> pick the right driver. I suspect we'll need SoC specific
> compatibles though to export the right set of clocks, so having
> the generic compatible is mostly to find these rpm clock
> controllers so that we know to skip registering the XO clock from
> the GCC driver and not some generic implementation of the driver.
>

Ahh, now I get it. So the generic rpmcc to be able to check if we have
a rpmcc instance and then the specific for the actual implementation.

I'm +1 on that.

> There's probably a subset of the clocks that's always the same
> between devices, so if we had to we could match the generic
> compatible and provide limited functionality.
>

After looking at a couple of platforms I don't think it's worth the
effort of having a common list of rpm clocks. My suggestion is that we
just continue with the suggested approach (having platform specific
rpmcc defines and tables)

Regards,
Bjorn
--
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/