linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 2/7] clk: sunxi-ng: div: Allow to set a maximum

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: <CAGb2v66C9GJ5Svm+7NE2cStc5KiNgoriB329K4fhZJMTSbZ8Kw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 7 Sep 2016 00:20:10 +0800
From:   Chen-Yu Tsai <wens@...e.org>
To:     Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@...e-electrons.com>
Cc:     Mike Turquette <mturquette@...libre.com>,
        Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...eaurora.org>,
        Chen-Yu Tsai <wens@...e.org>,
        Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com>,
        Mylene Josserand <mylene.josserand@...e-electrons.com>,
        linux-clk <linux-clk@...r.kernel.org>,
        devicetree <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-arm-kernel <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@...e-electrons.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/7] clk: sunxi-ng: div: Allow to set a maximum

On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 8:18 PM, Maxime Ripard
<maxime.ripard@...e-electrons.com> wrote:
> Some dividers might have a maximum value that is lower than the width of
> the register.
>
> Add a field to _ccu_div to handle those case properly. If the field is set
> to 0, the code will assume that the maximum value is the maximum one that
> can be used with the field register width.

This is a bit confusing. What is the maximum referring to? The raw value
in the register? Or the actual divider?

Personally I'd go with the maximum valid value of the register. You
could get rid of the special power-of-2 handling code you added.

Either way I think the message and the field name should be more explicit.

>
> Otherwise, we'll use whatever value has been set.
>
> Signed-off-by: Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@...e-electrons.com>

[...]

The code looks correct.


Regards
ChenYu