linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 3/3] clk: qcom: Add Global Clock controller (GCC) driver for SC7180

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, 04 Oct 2019 16:20:21 -0700
From:   Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>
To:     Michael Turquette <mturquette@...libre.com>,
        Taniya Das <tdas@...eaurora.org>, robh+dt@...nel.org
Cc:     David Brown <david.brown@...aro.org>,
        Rajendra Nayak <rnayak@...eaurora.org>,
        linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, linux-soc@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-clk@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/3] clk: qcom: Add Global Clock controller (GCC) driver for SC7180

Quoting Taniya Das (2019-10-04 10:39:31)
> Hi Stephen,
> 
> On 10/3/2019 9:31 PM, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> > Quoting Taniya Das (2019-10-03 03:31:15)
> >> Hi Stephen,
> >>
> >> On 10/1/2019 8:08 PM, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Why do you want to keep them critical and registered? I'm suggesting
> >>> that any clk that is marked critical and doesn't have a parent should
> >>> instead become a register write in probe to turn the clk on.
> >>>
> >> Sure, let me do a one-time enable from probe for the clocks which
> >> doesn't have a parent.
> >> But I would now have to educate the clients of these clocks to remove
> >> using them.
> >>
> > 
> > If anyone is using these clks we can return NULL from the provider for
> > the specifier so that we indicate there isn't support for them in the
> > kernel. At least I hope that code path still works given all the recent
> > changes to clk_get().
> > 
> 
> Could you please confirm if you are referring to update the below?

I wasn't suggesting that explicitly but sure. Something like this would
be necessary to make clk_get() pass back a NULL pointer to the caller.
Does everything keep working with this change?