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  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:   Wed, 20 Feb 2019 11:29:01 +0100
From:   Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@...tlin.com>
To:     Nicolas.Ferre@...rochip.com
Cc:     sboyd@...nel.org, mturquette@...libre.com,
        linux-clk@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] clk: at91: fix at91sam9x5 peripheral clock number

On 20/02/2019 10:20:28+0000, Nicolas Ferre wrote:
> On 19/02/2019 at 17:51, Alexandre Belloni wrote:
> > nck() looks at the last id in an array and unfortunately,
> > at91sam9x35_periphck has a sentinel, hence the id is 0 and the calculated
> 
> Well, the logic for all other SoC clk files is to not have such a 
> sentinel and deal differently with this type of array: why not modify 
> this file to match with others?
> 
> 
> > number of peripheral clocks is 1 instead of a maximum of 31.
> > 
> > Fixes: 1eabdc2f9dd8 ("clk: at91: add at91sam9x5 PMCs driver")
> > Signed-off-by: Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@...tlin.com>
> > ---
> >   drivers/clk/at91/at91sam9x5.c | 3 +--
> >   1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/clk/at91/at91sam9x5.c b/drivers/clk/at91/at91sam9x5.c
> > index 2fe225a697df..d37e7ed9eb90 100644
> > --- a/drivers/clk/at91/at91sam9x5.c
> > +++ b/drivers/clk/at91/at91sam9x5.c
> > @@ -144,8 +144,7 @@ static void __init at91sam9x5_pmc_setup(struct device_node *np,
> >   		return;
> >   
> >   	at91sam9x5_pmc = pmc_data_allocate(PMC_MAIN + 1,
> > -					   nck(at91sam9x5_systemck),
> > -					   nck(at91sam9x35_periphck), 0);
> > +					   nck(at91sam9x5_systemck), 31, 0);
> 
> I would prefer like it's done on other SoC clk files.
> 

Well, that is not possible, what do you suggest?

> >   	if (!at91sam9x5_pmc)
> >   		return;
> >   
> > 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Nicolas Ferre

-- 
Alexandre Belloni, Bootlin
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
https://bootlin.com

Powered by blists - more mailing lists