linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 01/13] clk: qcom: gcc: limit GPLL0_AO

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:   Fri, 21 Dec 2018 13:51:24 -0800
From:   Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>
To:     Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@...aro.org>,
        Jorge Ramirez <jorge.ramirez-ortiz@...aro.org>,
        Taniya Das <tdas@...eaurora.org>
Cc:     robh+dt@...nel.org, mark.rutland@....com, andy.gross@...aro.org,
        david.brown@...aro.org, will.deacon@....com,
        mturquette@...libre.com, jassisinghbrar@...il.com,
        vkoul@...nel.org, niklas.cassel@...aro.org, sibis@...eaurora.org,
        georgi.djakov@...aro.org, arnd@...db.de,
        horms+renesas@...ge.net.au, heiko@...ech.de,
        enric.balletbo@...labora.com, jagan@...rulasolutions.com,
        olof@...om.net, amit.kucheria@...aro.org,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-clk@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/13] clk: qcom: gcc: limit GPLL0_AO_OUT operating frequency

Quoting Jorge Ramirez (2018-12-21 13:45:41)
> On 12/21/18 22:40, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> > Quoting Jorge Ramirez (2018-12-21 11:45:28)
> >> On 12/21/18 20:28, Bjorn Andersson wrote:
> >>> Perhaps there's a better way to define that this particular clock
> >>> hardware can change rate, but in this implementation it must not?
> >> the initialization for this particular PLL on this particular platform
> >> is wrong
> >> as the interface does not apply to the platform needs even though it is an
> >> alpha_pll
> >>
> >> if the VCO is not an option -even though it reflects the platform
> >> constrains-
> >> I would suggest nullifying the alpha_pll_ops that do not apply to this
> >> platform:
> >> ie: set_rate, round_rate set to null in the probe.
> >>
> >> allowing the interface calls (ops) to go through to later on make them fail
> >> based on some setting would be fundamentally wrong IMO
> >>
> > We have clk_alpha_pll_postdiv_ro_ops so maybe just add another set of
> > those for the alpha_pll itself?
> >
> >
> 
> something like 
> clk_alpha_pll_fixed_ops?

Either way works. We're not consistent in naming now that we have
clk_alpha_pll_fixed_fabia_ops.