linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/4] clk: meson: mpll: add init callback and regs

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]

Message-ID: <CAEG3pNCrANkLBeEA_wVU7n4U57X3sd-1EzhUZ_PHBryqPHoAaQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 5 Apr 2019 08:43:40 -0700
From:   Michael Turquette <mturquette@...libre.com>
To:     Jerome Brunet <jbrunet@...libre.com>
Cc:     Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>,
        Neil Armstrong <narmstrong@...libre.com>,
        "open list:ARM/Amlogic Meson..." <linux-amlogic@...ts.infradead.org>,
        "Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...eaurora.org>, Emilio Lopez
        <emilio@...pez.com.ar>, Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com>, linux-clk
        <linux-clk@...r.kernel.org>, linux-arm-kernel" 
        <linux-clk@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] clk: meson: mpll: add init callback and regs

Hi Jerome,

On Fri, Mar 29, 2019 at 3:58 PM Jerome Brunet <jbrunet@...libre.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 2019-03-29 at 15:14 -0700, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> > > > We actively discourage using init callbacks. Can you do this some other
> > > > way?
> > >
> > > Yes I'm aware of that but init it the right place to do this.
> > > To be clear, this is not initializing the clock to some particular rate, the
> > > rate is preserved.
> > >
> > > It just applies the necessary settings that needs to be done only once to make
> > > sure the clock is in working order and that the rate calculated is actually
> > > accurate.
> >
> > Ok, but can you do that in your driver's probe routine instead of
> > attaching to the init callback? We want to get rid of "init" at some
> > point so throwing the init sequence stuff into the driver probe around
> > registration is a solution. Or we should think about not discouraging
> > the init callback
>
> Is is callback really a problem after all ?

It is a problem, insofar as Stephen and I want to remove .init some day.

> I think we should actively prevent using it to set a particular rate.
>
> Here, the goal is put the clock in working order. The bootloader does not
> always do that for us.

The above two sentences make it sound like this sequence belongs in .prepare().

I know that you're concerned with setting rate, but I guess it is safe
to assume that you'll always complete .prepare() before you begin to
execute .set_rate(), no? This also avoids the ugliness of putting it
in the .probe(), which I agree doesn't feel like an accurate thing to
do for a clock's own programming sequence.

.probe() is an OK place to put policy (turn these clocks on or set
them to this rate, for a known-good configuration).

Thanks,
Mike

> I could put this in controller driver, but I would have
> to repeat the init pattern for each instance of the clock...not nice
> Using the callback clearly shows the relationship between the init and the
> clock. I think it is a lot better.
>
> In the same series, I have added some init for the controller. In this case
> the init target a group of clocks, so having the init in the controller makes
> sense for that
>
>
>


-- 
Michael Turquette
CEO
BayLibre - At the Heart of Embedded Linux
http://baylibre.com/
Schedule a meeting: https://calendly.com/mturquette