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  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]
Date:   Fri, 10 Aug 2018 09:27:05 -0700
From:   Doug Anderson <>
To:     Mark Brown <>
Cc:     Dilip Kota <>,
        Stephen Boyd <>,
        LKML <>,
        linux-spi <>,
        Sagar Dharia <>,
        Karthikeyan Ramasubramanian <>,
        linux-arm-msm <>,
        "Mahadevan, Girish" <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] spi: spi-geni-qcom: Add SPI driver support for GENI based QUP


On Fri, Aug 10, 2018 at 9:13 AM, Mark Brown <> wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 10, 2018 at 08:40:17AM -0700, Doug Anderson wrote:
>> On Fri, Aug 10, 2018 at 3:52 AM, Mark Brown <> wrote:
>> > This is more about matching the data rate between the two drivers - the
>> > clock framework could (and possibly should) reasonably return an error
>> > here, we're trying to ensure that drivers and controllers work well
>> > together here.
>> The clock framework should be able to accomplish what you want.  If
>> you just request the rate it will do its best to make the rate
>> requested.  If we want to see what clock would be set before setting
> The request could be massively off the deliverable rate - 50% or more.

Agreed.  If the clock is massively off and that causes problems then
someone will need to debug it and find a solution.  I'm not aware of
us being in that case in the driver in question.

>> >> 3. If you really truly need code in the SPI driver then make sure you
>> >> include a compatible string for the SoC and have a table in the driver
>> >> that's found with of_device_get_match_data().  AKA:
>> >>   compatible = "qcom,geni-spi-sdm845", "qcom,geni-spi";
>> > A controller driver really shouldn't need to be open coding anything.
>> It wouldn't be open-coding, it would be a different way of specifying
>> things.  In my understanding it's always a judgement call about how
> If you're saying we need clock rate selection logic (which is what it
> sounds like) rather than data then that seems like a problem.

We're talking past each other I think.  Maybe a concrete example helps?


IMO the line marked "/* UNNEEDED */" below should be removed:

spi0: spi@...000 {
    compatible = "qcom,geni-spi";
    spi-max-frequency = <50000000>;  /* UNNEEDED */

    device@0 {
        spi-max-frequency = <25000000>;


Said another way: I don't think we should specify the
spi-max-frequency of the _master_ in the device tree.  If there is
_really_ no way to get the max speed from the clock framework and we
_really_ need a per-controller max speed on all geni controllers on
SDM845 then IMO the above should be:

spi0: spi@...000 {
    compatible = "qcom,geni-spi-sdm845", "qcom,geni-spi";

    device@0 {
        spi-max-frequency = <25000000>;

...and then the driver should say "oh, I have a compatible string of
"qcom,geni-spi-sdm845" so I know my controller's max frequency must be
50 MHz.  It can get that information using of_device_get_match_data().


Hopefully that's clearer?


Powered by blists - more mailing lists