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 PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Thu, 28 May 2020 10:44:01 -0700 From: Jolly Shah <jolly.shah@...inx.com> To: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>, Jolly Shah <jolly.shah@...inx.com>, arm@...nel.org, linux-clk@...r.kernel.org, michal.simek@...inx.com, mturquette@...libre.com, olof@...om.net Cc: rajanv@...inx.com, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Tejas Patel <tejas.patel@...inx.com>, Rajan Vaja <rajan.vaja@...inx.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] drivers: clk: zynqmp: Update fraction clock check from custom type flags Hi Stephan, Thanks for the review. > ------Original Message------ > From: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org> > Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 2020 6:08PM > To: Jolly Shah <jolly.shah@...inx.com>, Arm <arm@...nel.org>, Linux-clk <linux-clk@...r.kernel.org>, Michal Simek <michal.simek@...inx.com>, Mturquette <mturquette@...libre.com>, Olof <olof@...om.net> > Cc: Rajan Vaja <rajanv@...inx.com>, Linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>, Linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Tejas Patel <tejas.patel@...inx.com>, Rajan Vaja <rajan.vaja@...inx.com>, Jolly Shah <jolly.shah@...inx.com> > Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] drivers: clk: zynqmp: Update fraction clock check from custom type flags > > Quoting Jolly Shah (2020-03-12 14:31:39) >> From: Tejas Patel <tejas.patel@...inx.com> >> >> Older firmware version sets BIT(13) in clkflag to mark a >> divider as fractional divider. Updated firmware version sets BIT(4) >> in type flags to mark a divider as fractional divider since >> BIT(13) is defined as CLK_DUTY_CYCLE_PARENT in the common clk >> framework flags. >> >> To support both old and new firmware version, consider BIT(13) from >> clkflag and BIT(4) from type_flag to check if divider is fractional >> or not. >> >> To maintain compatibility BIT(13) of clkflag in firmware will not be >> used in future for any purpose and will be marked as unused. > > Why are we mixing the firmware flags with the ccf flags? They shouldn't > be the same. The firmware should have its own 'flag numberspace' that is > distinct from the common clk framework's 'flag numberspace'. Please fix > the code. > Yes firmware flags are using separate numberspace now. Firmware maintains CCF and firmware specific flags separately but earlier CLK_FRAC was mistakenly defined in ccf flagspace and hence handled here for backward compatibility. Driver takes care of not registering same with CCF. Let me know if I misunderstood. Thanks, Jolly Shah
Powered by blists - more mailing lists