linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v9 01/10] clk: fix initial state of critical clock's parents

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: <1467604308.26485.4.camel@mtksdaap41>
Date:	Mon, 4 Jul 2016 11:51:48 +0800
From:	James Liao <jamesjj.liao@...iatek.com>
To:	Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...eaurora.org>,
	Mike Turquette <mturquette@...libre.com>
CC:	Erin Lo <erin.lo@...iatek.com>,
	Matthias Brugger <matthias.bgg@...il.com>,
	Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
	John Crispin <blogic@...nwrt.org>,
	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
	Sascha Hauer <kernel@...gutronix.de>,
	Daniel Kurtz <djkurtz@...omium.org>,
	Philipp Zabel <p.zabel@...gutronix.de>,
	<devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	<linux-mediatek@...ts.infradead.org>, <linux-clk@...r.kernel.org>,
	<srv_heupstream@...iatek.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 01/10] clk: fix initial state of critical clock's
 parents

On Fri, 2016-07-01 at 18:21 -0700, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> (Resending to everyone)
> 
> On 06/22, Erin Lo wrote:
> > From: James Liao <jamesjj.liao@...iatek.com>
> > 
> > This patch fixed wrong state of parent clocks if they are registered
> > after critical clocks.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: James Liao <jamesjj.liao@...iatek.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Erin Lo <erin.lo@...iatek.com>
> 
> It would be nice if you included the information about the
> problem from James' previous mail. This says what it does, but
> doesn't explain what the problem is and how it is fixing it.
> 
> > ---
> >  drivers/clk/clk.c | 9 ++++++++-
> >  1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/clk/clk.c b/drivers/clk/clk.c
> > index d584004..e9f5f89 100644
> > --- a/drivers/clk/clk.c
> > +++ b/drivers/clk/clk.c
> > @@ -2388,8 +2388,15 @@ static int __clk_core_init(struct clk_core *core)
> >  	hlist_for_each_entry_safe(orphan, tmp2, &clk_orphan_list, child_node) {
> >  		struct clk_core *parent = __clk_init_parent(orphan);
> >  
> > -		if (parent)
> > +		if (parent) {
> >  			clk_core_reparent(orphan, parent);
> > +
> > +			if (orphan->prepare_count)
> > +				clk_core_prepare(parent);
> > +
> > +			if (orphan->enable_count)
> > +				clk_core_enable(parent);
> > +		}
> >  	}
> 
> I'm pretty sure I pointed this problem out to Mike when the
> critical clk patches were being pushed. I can't recall what the
> plan was though to fix the problem. I'm pretty sure he said that
> clk_core_reparent() would take care of it, but obviously it is
> not doing that. Or perhaps it was that clk handoff should figure
> out that the parents of a critical clk are also on and thus keep
> them on.

Hi Mike

Is there any other patch to fix this issue? Or did I misuse critical
clock flag?


Best regards,

James