linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 2/7] drm/msm/dsi: 14nm PHY: Get ref clock from the DT

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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Tue, 27 Nov 2018 21:56:46 -0800
From:   Doug Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>
To:     Matthias Kaehlcke <mka@...omium.org>
Cc:     Rob Clark <robdclark@...il.com>, David Airlie <airlied@...ux.ie>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        Andy Gross <andy.gross@...aro.org>,
        David Brown <david.brown@...aro.org>,
        Archit Taneja <architt@...eaurora.org>,
        Sean Paul <seanpaul@...omium.org>,
        Rajesh Yadav <ryadav@...eaurora.org>,
        Stephen Boyd <swboyd@...omium.org>,
        Jeykumar Sankaran <jsanka@...eaurora.org>,
        linux-arm-msm <linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org>,
        dri-devel <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
        freedreno <freedreno@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/7] drm/msm/dsi: 14nm PHY: Get ref clock from the DT

Hi,

On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 3:12 PM Matthias Kaehlcke <mka@...omium.org> wrote:
>
> Get the ref clock of the PHY from the device tree instead of
> hardcoding its name and rate.

In the case of the 14nm PHY I think it's OK that you break
compatibility with old device tree files (as this patch does) since
the 14nm support was added sorta recently and "git grep" shows no
users in linuxnext.  You should note that you're breaking
compatibility with old DTS files in the commit message here so that if
someone crawls out of the woodwork it will be easy for them to
understand what happened.

> +       pll_14nm->vco_ref_clk = devm_clk_get(&pdev->dev, "ref");
> +       if (IS_ERR(pll_14nm->vco_ref_clk)) {
> +               ret = PTR_ERR(pll_14nm->vco_ref_clk);
> +               if (ret != EPROBE_DEFER)

Shouldn't this check against -EPROBE_DEFER, not against EPROBE_DEFER?
It's negative.  Presumably this same feedback needs to be applied to
the whole patch series.

Other than that this looks good to me and you can feel free to add my
Reviewed-by tag FWIW.

-Doug