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 17:55:50 +0000
From:   Trent Piepho <>
To:     "" <>,
        "" <>,
        "" <>
CC:     "" <>,
        "" <>,
        "" <>,
        "" <>,
        "" <>,
        "" <>,
        "" <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] spi: spi-geni-qcom: Add SPI driver support for GENI based

On Fri, 2018-08-10 at 21:59 +0530, wrote:
> Here are my couple of cents:
> SPI controller maximum frequency can be lesser than or equal to Clock 
> framework's maximum
> frequency, so should not rely on the Clock framework.

But there is probably some means, via the controller's IP block input
clock, combined with the controller's IP version (from the compatible
string and a device data table), to derive the controller's max clock.

At least, AFAICT, this has been the case for all existing master

> Now the need is, how to communicate the SPI controller maximum frequency 
> to SPI core framework?
> Is it by DTSI entry or hardcoding in the SPI controller driver?
> My stand is for providing the DTSI entry.
> Why because, this keeps SPI controller driver generic across the boards 
> and portable.
> Also it is not against to Device tree usage because maximum frequency
> is describing the property of the hardware.

My point is that not everything that possibly can go in the device tree
should be placed there, just because it can be.  If the master driver
can figure out its max speed, let it do that.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists