linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] clk: tegra: divider: Check UART's divider enable-bit state on rate's recalculation

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: <ec7062cf-a246-8b95-dca7-34e2b957d691@gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 14 Nov 2019 15:10:51 +0300
From:   Dmitry Osipenko <digetx@...il.com>
To:     Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>
Cc:     Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>,
        Jonathan Hunter <jonathanh@...dia.com>,
        Michael Turquette <mturquette@...libre.com>,
        Peter De Schrijver <pdeschrijver@...dia.com>,
        Prashant Gaikwad <pgaikwad@...dia.com>,
        linux-clk@...r.kernel.org, linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] clk: tegra: divider: Check UART's divider enable-bit
 state on rate's recalculation

14.11.2019 14:56, Thierry Reding пишет:
> On Thu, Nov 14, 2019 at 02:29:51PM +0300, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
>> 14.11.2019 02:03, Stephen Boyd пишет:
>>> Quoting Dmitry Osipenko (2019-10-29 17:48:13)
>>>> UART clock is divided using divisor values from DLM/DLL registers when
>>>> enable-bit is unset in clk register and clk's divider configuration isn't
>>>> taken onto account in this case. This doesn't cause any problems, but
>>>> let's add a check for the divider's enable-bit state, for consistency.
>>>>
>>>> Acked-by: Peter De Schrijver <pdeschrijver@...dia.com>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Dmitry Osipenko <digetx@...il.com>
>>>> ---
>>>
>>> Is this going to be picked up or should I just apply atop the tegra PR?
>>
>> Looks like this patch missed the Tegra's PR by accident.
>>
>> Stephen, I assume it will be easier if you could apply this patch atop.
>> The patch doesn't have any dependencies on any other patches, so it's
>> fine to apply it separately. Thanks in advance!
>>
>> Thierry, please let us know if you have any objections.
> 
> It's not so much that I missed to pick this up. It's just that it didn't
> make it in time. This was posted just a couple of days before v5.4-rc6
> and I had already finalized the branches at that point. Given that this
> doesn't fix any actual issues it didn't seem worth to force it in at
> that point.
> 
> That said, I don't have any objections if Stephen wants to pick this up
> on top of the pull requests.

Thanks!