linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/4] add minimal bcm2835-sdram 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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 12 May 2016 18:03:00 +0200
From:	Martin Sperl <kernel@...tin.sperl.org>
To:	Stefan Wahren <stefan.wahren@...e.com>
Cc:	Lee Jones <lee@...nel.org>, Eric Anholt <eric@...olt.net>,
	Pawel Moll <pawel.moll@....com>,
	Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Russell King <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
	Stephen Warren <swarren@...dotorg.org>,
	linux-rpi-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
	Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>, devicetree@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] add minimal bcm2835-sdram driver


> On 12.05.2016, at 17:55, Stefan Wahren <stefan.wahren@...e.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
>> Martin Sperl <kernel@...tin.sperl.org> hat am 12. Mai 2016 um 17:28
>> geschrieben:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> On 12.05.2016, at 16:50, Stefan Wahren <stefan.wahren@...e.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hi Martin,
>>> 
>>>> kernel@...tin.sperl.org hat am 12. Mai 2016 um 14:38 geschrieben:
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> From: Martin Sperl <kernel@...tin.sperl.org>
>>>> 
>>>> As the sdram clock is a critical clock to the system
>>>> the minimal bcm2835-sdram driver claims (and enables)
>>>> this clock and also exposes the corresponding sdram
>>>> registers via debugfs.
>>> 
>>> sounds like this driver should fix an clock handling issue. Unfortunately
>>> this
>>> isn't a solution in case the driver is disabled.
>> Unfortunately there is no way around this - the driver has
>> to be enabled so that the sdram clock or the parent pll,
>> which typically is plld_core, never gets disabled.
>> 
>> The only other option would be marking the clock as critical
>> for those legacy drivers.
> 
> i would prefer this option. Since this would be more a fix we could get this
> faster in, it's more clear why we are doing that and less to review.
> 
> Did i miss a drawback?

We had long discussions already on that - and HAND_OFF did not make
it into the kernel either.

I had hoped that this was simple enough.

Martin