linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 09/10] clk: qcom: Add .is

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: <57BEB72D.30504@codeaurora.org>
Date:   Thu, 25 Aug 2016 14:45:25 +0530
From:   Rajendra Nayak <rnayak@...eaurora.org>
To:     Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...eaurora.org>
CC:     mturquette@...libre.com, linux-clk@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        tdas@...eaurora.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 09/10] clk: qcom: Add .is_enabled ops for clk-alpha-pll


On 08/24/2016 11:58 AM, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> On 08/11, Rajendra Nayak wrote:
>> This would be useful in subsequent patches when the .set_rate operation
>> would need to identify if the PLL is actually enabled
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Rajendra Nayak <rnayak@...eaurora.org>
>> ---
> 
> Hmmm I suspect I never implemented the is_enabled op because that
> will happen to turn off clks during late init that shouldn't
> otherwise be disabled because the framework now can see that some
> PLL is enabled out of the bootloader. Is that happening now? We
> really should fix the framework to make this not be a problem,
> mostly by finishing off the clk handoff patches that Mike posted
> a while back. But either way, I'm worried with these patches that
> implement is_enabled ops.

I did not see any, but will try and test some more to see if we indeed
run into such issues

-- 
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum,
hosted by The Linux Foundation