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, 19 Jan 2016 11:43:16 +0900 From: Andi Shyti <andi.shyti@...sung.com> To: Yadwinder Singh Brar <yadi.brar01@...il.com> Cc: linux-samsung-soc <linux-samsung-soc@...r.kernel.org>, Sangbeom Kim <sbkim73@...sung.com>, Krzysztof Kozlowski <k.kozlowski@...sung.com>, Michael Turquette <mturquette@...libre.com>, Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...eaurora.org>, linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, linux-clk@...r.kernel.org, Andi Shyti <andi@...zian.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] clk: s2mps11: allocate only one structure for clock init Hi Yadwinder, > The driver allocates three structures for three different clock > types. They are quite similar and in the clock init data they > differ only by the name. Only one of these structure is used, > while the others lie unused in the memory. > > > If you are worried about memory, they can be made __initdata by > creating a copy during probe. mmmhhh... allocating in boot time as much as we want and then copy what we need? It doesn't look that pretty to me. > The clock's name, though, is not such a meaningful information > > > I think it can be meaningful in debugging. Can you explain what's the use of the naming other than debugging? > and by assigning the same name to the initial data we can avoid > over allocation. The common name chosen will be s2mps11, > coherently with the device driver name, instead of the clock > device. > > Therefore, remove the structures associated to s2mps13 and > s2mps14 and use only the one referred to s2mps11 for all kind of > clocks. > > > IMHO, with all these modifications, it will leave driver with some extra > checks and reduced readability, perhaps will make it complex to add > support for similar clocks but with different clk_ops, if next version or > any similar mfd chip comes up in future. In that case, when the new chip will come, we would need to figure out something, but for sure I don't see it as a good idea to leave allocated unused structures. Thanks, Andi
Powered by blists - more mailing lists