linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 7/7] clk: qcom: apcs-msm8916: use clk_parent

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: <20191230180443.9E700206CB@mail.kernel.org>
Date:   Mon, 30 Dec 2019 10:04:42 -0800
From:   Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>
To:     Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@...aro.org>
Cc:     Niklas Cassel <nks@...wful.org>, Andy Gross <agross@...nel.org>,
        Niklas Cassel <niklas.cassel@...aro.org>,
        linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, amit.kucheria@...aro.org,
        Michael Turquette <mturquette@...libre.com>,
        linux-clk@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 7/7] clk: qcom: apcs-msm8916: use clk_parent_data to specify the parent

Quoting Bjorn Andersson (2019-12-26 18:26:52)
> On Mon 23 Dec 18:16 PST 2019, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> 
> > Quoting Niklas Cassel (2019-12-20 09:56:16)
> > > On Wed, Dec 18, 2019 at 10:23:39PM -0800, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> > > > This is odd. The clks could be registered with of_clk_hw_register() but
> > > > then we lose the device provider information. Maybe we should search up
> > > > one level to the parent node and if that has a DT node but the
> > > > clk controller device doesn't we should use that instead?
> > > 
> > > Hello Stephen,
> > > 
> > > Having this in the clk core is totally fine with me,
> > > since it solves my problem.
> > > 
> > > Will you cook up a patch, or do you want me to do it?
> > > 
> > 
> > Can you try the patch I appended to my previous mail? I can write
> > something up more proper later this week.
> > 
> 
> Unfortunately we have clocks with no dev, so this fail as below. Adding
> a second check for dev != NULL to your oneliner works fine though.
> 
> I.e. this ugly hack works fine:
>   core->of_node = np ? : (dev ? dev_of_node(dev->parent) : NULL);
> 

Ok, thanks for testing!