linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH V3 3/4] clk: imx: Add support for i.MX8MN clock driver

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]

Date:   Tue, 25 Jun 2019 15:34:56 -0700
From:   Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>
To:     "bjorn.andersson@...aro.org" <bjorn.andersson@...aro.org>,
        "catalin.marinas@....com" <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        "devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        "dinguyen@...nel.org" <dinguyen@...nel.org>,
        "enric.balletbo@...labora.com" <enric.balletbo@...labora.com>,
        "festevam@...il.com" <festevam@...il.com>,
        "horms+renesas@...ge.net.au" <horms+renesas@...ge.net.au>,
        "jagan@...rulasolutions.com" <jagan@...rulasolutions.com>,
        "kernel@...gutronix.de" <kernel@...gutronix.de>,
        "l.stach@...gutronix.de" <l.stach@...gutronix.de>,
        "linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
        <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        "linux-clk@...r.kernel.org" <linux-clk@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "mark.rutland@....com" <mark.rutland@....com>,
        "maxime.ripard@...tlin.com" <maxime.ripard@...tlin.com>,
        "mturquette@...libre.com" <mturquette@...libre.com>,
        "olof@...om.net" <olof@...om.net>,
        "robh+dt@...nel.org" <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        "s.hauer@...gutronix .de" <s.hauer@...gutronix.de>,
        "shawnguo@...nel.org" <shawnguo@...nel.org>,
        "will.deacon@....com" <will.deacon@....com>,
        Abel Vesa <abel.vesa@....com>,
        Aisheng Dong <aisheng.dong@....com>,
        Anson Huang <anson.huang@....com>,
        Jacky Bai <ping.bai@....com>,
        Leonard Crestez <leonard.crestez@....com>
Cc:     dl-linux-imx <linux-imx@....com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH V3 3/4] clk: imx: Add support for i.MX8MN clock driver

Quoting Anson Huang (2019-06-10 19:06:22)
> > >
> > > Sorry, I am still a little confused, all the clock
> > > register(clk_register()) are via each different clock types like
> > > imx_clk_gate4/imx_clk_pll14xx, if using clk_hw_register, means we need
> > > to re-write the clock driver using different clk register method, that
> > > will make the driver completely different from i.mx8mq/i.mx8mm, they
> > > are actually same series of SoC as i.mx8mn, it will introduce many
> > confusion, is my understanding correct? And is it OK to just keep what it is
> > and make them all aligned?
> > >
> > 
> > Ok, the problem I'm trying to point out is that clk registrations need to be
> > undone, i.e. clk_unregister() needs to be called, when the driver fails to
> > probe. devm_*() is one way to do this, but if you have other ways of
> > removing all the registered clks then that works too. Makes sense?
> 
> Yes, it makes sense. Do you think it is OK to add an imx_unregister_clocks() API, then
> call it in every place of returning failure in .probe function? If yes, I will add it and also
> fix it in i.MX8MQ driver which uses platform driver model but does NOT handle this case. 
> 
>         base = devm_platform_ioremap_resource(pdev, 0);
> -       if (WARN_ON(IS_ERR(base)))
> -               return PTR_ERR(base);
> +       if (WARN_ON(IS_ERR(base))) {
> +               ret = PTR_ERR(base);
> +               goto unregister_clks;
> +       }
> 
>                 pr_err("failed to register clks for i.MX8MN\n");
> -               return -EINVAL;
> +               goto unregister_clks;
>         }
> 
>         return 0;
> +
> +unregister_clks:
> +       imx_unregister_clocks(clks, ARRAY_SIZE(clks));
> +
> +       return ret;
> 
> +void imx_unregister_clocks(struct clk *clks[], unsigned int count)
> +{
> +       unsigned i;
> +
> +       for (i = 0; i < count; i++)
> +               clk_unregister(clks[i]);
> +}
> +
> 

Yes, looks better.