linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] arm64: dts: sc7180: Add minimal dts/dtsi files for SC7180 soc

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:   Wed, 16 Oct 2019 13:54:32 +0530
From:   Vinod Koul <vkoul@...nel.org>
To:     Taniya Das <tdas@...eaurora.org>
Cc:     Rajendra Nayak <rnayak@...eaurora.org>, agross@...nel.org,
        robh+dt@...nel.org, bjorn.andersson@...aro.org,
        linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] arm64: dts: sc7180: Add minimal dts/dtsi files for
 SC7180 soc

On 16-10-19, 13:22, Taniya Das wrote:
> Hi Vinod,
> 
> On 10/16/2019 10:55 AM, Vinod Koul wrote:
> > On 15-10-19, 16:03, Rajendra Nayak wrote:
> > 
> > > +	timer {
> > > +		compatible = "arm,armv8-timer";
> > > +		interrupts = <GIC_PPI 1 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_LOW>,
> > > +			     <GIC_PPI 2 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_LOW>,
> > > +			     <GIC_PPI 3 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_LOW>,
> > > +			     <GIC_PPI 0 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_LOW>;
> > > +	};
> > > +
> > > +	clocks {
> > 
> > Can we have these sorted alphabetically please
> > 
> > > +		xo_board: xo-board {
> > > +			compatible = "fixed-clock";
> > > +			clock-frequency = <38400000>;
> > > +			clock-output-names = "xo_board";
> > > +			#clock-cells = <0>;
> > > +		};
> > > +
> > > +		sleep_clk: sleep-clk {
> > > +			compatible = "fixed-clock";
> > > +			clock-frequency = <32764>;
> > > +			clock-output-names = "sleep_clk";
> > > +			#clock-cells = <0>;
> > > +		};
> > > +
> > > +		bi_tcxo: bi_tcxo {
> > 
> > why is this a clock defined here? Isnt this gcc clock?
> 
> This is a RPMH-controlled clock and not from GCC. It is the parent clock for
> GCC RCGs/PLLs.

Yes right!

> Once the RPMH clock support is added these would be removed.

Wont it make sense to keep this bit not upstream and then remove that
part when you have rpmh support available. Reduces the churn upstream!

The parent can be xo_board till then!

-- 
~Vinod