linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 1/1] scsi: ufs: make UFS Tx lane1 clock optional for QCOM platforms

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]

Message-ID: <5f2d152941aed6411f54d47dd7ec199e@codeaurora.org>
Date:   Sat, 13 Oct 2018 10:13:02 +0800
From:   cang@...eaurora.org
To:     Doug Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>
Cc:     subhashj@...eaurora.org, Asutosh Das <asutoshd@...eaurora.org>,
        Vivek Gautam <vivek.gautam@...eaurora.org>,
        Evan Green <evgreen@...omium.org>,
        Rajendra Nayak <rnayak@...eaurora.org>,
        Vinayak Holikatti <vinholikatti@...il.com>,
        jejb@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
        "Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>,
        linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-arm-msm <linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org>,
        venkatg@...eaurora.org, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/1] scsi: ufs: make UFS Tx lane1 clock optional for
 QCOM platforms

On 2018-10-13 00:55, Doug Anderson wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On Thu, Oct 11, 2018 at 6:12 PM Can Guo <cang@...eaurora.org> wrote:
>> +       if (err != -EPROBE_DEFER)
>> +               dev_err(dev, "failed to get %s err %d",
>> +                               name, err);
> 
> I wouldn't spin just for this, but if you spin for some other reason
> you could move the above "dev_err" onto one line now.  Sorry: I should
> have noticed that / done that on my patch...
> 
> 

Yeah... I didn't notice it too. Shall push a new one to address it.

>> @@ -141,24 +147,21 @@ static int ufs_qcom_enable_lane_clks(struct 
>> ufs_qcom_host *host)
> 
> Idea for a future patch: now that I look at what's left of this
> function you're basically re-implementing clk_bulk_prepare_enable()
> and clk_bulk_disable_unprepare() now.  I bet your code would be
> cleaner / nicer by switching to that.
> 
> ...possibly you might need to improve the clk_bulk_get() API to allow
> for some clock to be optional, but that would be a pretty easy patch
> to post up.
> 
> In any case I think it's better to do the clk_bulk switch in a future
> / separate patch, so:
> 
> Reviewed-by: Douglas Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>
> Tested-by: Douglas Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>
> 
> 
> -Doug

That is a good idea, I shall follow up after this one is merged.

Thank you.
-Can Guo