linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 2/4] clk: tegra: refactor 7.1 div calculation

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Thu, 12 Jul 2018 10:44:16 +0300
From:   Aapo Vienamo <avienamo@...dia.com>
To:     Jon Hunter <jonathanh@...dia.com>
CC:     Peter De Schrijver <pdeschrijver@...dia.com>,
        Prashant Gaikwad <pgaikwad@...dia.com>,
        Michael Turquette <mturquette@...libre.com>,
        "Stephen Boyd" <sboyd@...nel.org>,
        Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-clk@...r.kernel.org>,
        <linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/4] clk: tegra: refactor 7.1 div calculation

On Wed, 11 Jul 2018 16:14:13 +0100
Jon Hunter <jonathanh@...dia.com> wrote:

> On 11/07/18 12:17, Peter De Schrijver wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 09:42:20AM +0100, Jon Hunter wrote:  
> >>
> >> On 11/07/18 09:00, Peter De Schrijver wrote:  
> >>> On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 05:17:05PM +0100, Jon Hunter wrote:  
> >>>>
> >>>> On 09/07/18 17:38, Aapo Vienamo wrote:  
> >>>>> From: Peter De Schrijver <pdeschrijver@...dia.com>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Move this to a separate file so it can be used to calculate the sdmmc
> >>>>> clock dividers.  
> >>>>
> >>>> Sorry for not commenting sooner, but what is the motivation for moving
> >>>> this to its own file? I don't see why we need to do this in order to use
> >>>> elsewhere. Furthermore, the original file is quite aptly named 'clk-divider.c'
> >>>> and now we have a div71.c which seems quite specific.  
> >>>
> >>> How else would you do it?  
> >>
> >> Keep it in the same file?
> >>  
> > 
> > That seems odd. clk-divider.c is meant to implement a clock type, not
> > utility functions we happen to need in several types.  
> 
> I see, then why not have a clk-utils.c for stuff like this. I am painting
> the bikeshed here, but div71.c seems very specific and I still don't
> understand the 7.1 bit.

While the code could work with other dividers, it was called 7.1 because
the current usecases were only on 7.1 dividers. I can submit another
version with a different filename if other changes to the series come
about or if it's seen necessary to change div-frac.c from the latest
version of the series to something else.

 -Aapo