linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V4 3/5] clk: imx: Support building i.MX common clock driver as module

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: <CAA+hA=S9ENXtD7q362=y84qKAtR090pZOd6MF6uN8W223UK-+Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 2 Jul 2020 14:25:58 +0800
From:   Dong Aisheng <dongas86@...il.com>
To:     Anson Huang <anson.huang@....com>
Cc:     Michael Turquette <mturquette@...libre.com>,
        Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>,
        Shawn Guo <shawnguo@...nel.org>,
        Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@...gutronix.de>,
        Sascha Hauer <kernel@...gutronix.de>,
        Fabio Estevam <festevam@...il.com>,
        Peng Fan <peng.fan@....com>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        Abel Vesa <abel.vesa@....com>,
        Aisheng Dong <aisheng.dong@....com>,
        Andy Duan <fugang.duan@....com>,
        Daniel Baluta <daniel.baluta@....com>,
        YueHaibing <yuehaibing@...wei.com>,
        Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
        linux-clk <linux-clk@...r.kernel.org>,
        open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "moderated list:ARM/FREESCALE IMX / MXC ARM ARCHITECTURE" 
        <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        dl-linux-imx <linux-imx@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V4 3/5] clk: imx: Support building i.MX common clock
 driver as module

On Thu, Jul 2, 2020 at 2:11 PM Anson Huang <anson.huang@....com> wrote:
>
> > Subject: Re: [PATCH V4 3/5] clk: imx: Support building i.MX common clock
> > driver as module
> >
> > On Thu, Jul 2, 2020 at 11:26 AM Anson Huang <anson.huang@....com>
> > wrote:
> > [...]
> > > > > @@ -143,16 +148,18 @@ void imx_cscmr1_fixup(u32 *val)  static int
> > > > > imx_keep_uart_clocks;  static struct clk ** const
> > > > > *imx_uart_clocks;
> > > > >
> > > > > -static int __init imx_keep_uart_clocks_param(char *str)
> > > > > +static int __maybe_unused imx_keep_uart_clocks_param(char *str)
> > > > >  {
> > > > >         imx_keep_uart_clocks = 1;
> > > > >
> > > > >         return 0;
> > > > >  }
> > > > > +#ifndef MODULE
> > > > >  __setup_param("earlycon", imx_keep_uart_earlycon,
> > > > >               imx_keep_uart_clocks_param, 0);
> > > > > __setup_param("earlyprintk", imx_keep_uart_earlyprintk,
> > > > >               imx_keep_uart_clocks_param, 0);
> > > >
> > > > I feel not only the __setup_param, the whole logic of
> > > > keep_uart_clocks are not needed for Module case. Is it true?
> > >
> > > Yes, but the 'keep_uart_clocks' is false by default and the function
> > > imx_keep_uart_clocks_param() already has '__maybe_unused', it does NOT
> > > impact anything if it is for module build, so I did NOT add the #ifndef check
> > for them, just to keep code easy and clean.
> > >
> >
> > IMHO do not compile them is a more easy and clean way. Then users don't
> > have to look into the code logic which is meaingless for Module case.
> >
> > BTW, it really does not make any sense to only condionally compile
> > __setup_parm() but left
> > the param functions definition to be handled by __maybe_unnused.
> > They're together part of code, aren't they?
>
> I am fine of adding the '#ifndef MODULE' to imx_clk_disable_uart() and imx_keep_uart_clocks_param()
> as well in next patch series. Others like ' imx_keep_uart_clocks ' and imx_register_uart_clocks() need to
> be kept always built, since they are used by each clock driver no matter built-in or module build.
>
> So that means I have to add another 'ifndef MODULE' or I need to adjust some code sequence to make
> those code can be built-out in same block and just use single 'ifndef MODULE', I think adjust the code
> sequence should be better, will go with this way.

What if we  condionally compile it in clk.h? Will that be easiser?

Regards
Aisheng

>
> Anson