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 PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2017 22:49:44 +0930 From: Joel Stanley <joel@....id.au> To: Andrew Jeffery <andrew@...id.au> Cc: Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>, Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>, Michael Turquette <mturquette@...libre.com>, Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...eaurora.org>, devicetree <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>, Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, linux-clk@...r.kernel.org, Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>, Jeremy Kerr <jk@...abs.org>, Rick Altherr <raltherr@...gle.com>, Ryan Chen <ryan_chen@...eedtech.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] clk: Add Aspeed G5 clock driver On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 1:12 PM, Andrew Jeffery <andrew@...id.au> wrote: > On Wed, 2017-08-23 at 15:39 +0930, Joel Stanley wrote: >> This driver supports the ast2500 and derivative BMC SoCs from Aspeed. >> >> All of the important clocks are supported, with most non-essential ones >> also implemented where information is available. I am working with >> Aspeed to clear up some of the missing information, including the >> missing parent-sibling relationships. >> >> We need to know the rate of the apb clock in order to correctly program >> the clocksource driver, so the apb and it's parents are created in the >> CLK_OF_DECLARE_DRIVER callback. >> >> The rest of the clocks are created at normal driver probe time. I >> followed the Gemini driver's lead with using the regmap where I could, >> but also having a pointer to the base address for use with the common >> clock callbacks. >> >> > Signed-off-by: Joel Stanley <joel@....id.au> >> --- >> drivers/clk/Kconfig | 12 + >> drivers/clk/Makefile | 1 + >> drivers/clk/clk-aspeed.c | 547 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > The patch subject suggests the implementation is specific to the G5 > series SoC, but the name of the driver is generic. How similar are the > G4 and G5 clock devices? Is the intent to expand the implementation to > also cover the G4 series, or should this be renamed to something more > specific? The intent is to cover the G4 platforms with the same driver. I sent this version along early to get feedback on the structure. As it turns out, it was simple to get the G4 going with the same code. I'll send a v2 in the next day or so. Cheers, Joel
Powered by blists - more mailing lists