linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] clk: scmi: Fix min and max rate when registering clocks with discrete rates

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: <159442504011.1987609.3990897866011325023@swboyd.mtv.corp.google.com>
Date:   Fri, 10 Jul 2020 16:50:40 -0700
From:   Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>
To:     Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-clk@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     Michael Turquette <mturquette@...libre.com>,
        Dien Pham <dien.pham.ry@...esas.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] clk: scmi: Fix min and max rate when registering clocks with discrete rates

Quoting Sudeep Holla (2020-07-09 01:17:05)
> Currently we are not initializing the scmi clock with discrete rates
> correctly. We fetch the min_rate and max_rate value only for clocks with
> ranges and ignore the ones with discrete rates. This will lead to wrong
> initialization of rate range when clock supports discrete rate.
> 
> Fix this by using the first and the last rate in the sorted list of the
> discrete clock rates while registering the clock.
> 
> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20200708110725.18017-2-sudeep.holla@arm.com
> Fixes: 6d6a1d82eaef7 ("clk: add support for clocks provided by SCMI")
> Reported-by: Dien Pham <dien.pham.ry@...esas.com>
> Signed-off-by: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>
> ---
>  drivers/clk/clk-scmi.c | 22 +++++++++++++++++++---
>  1 file changed, 19 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> 
> Hi Stephen,
> 
> If you are fine, I can take this via ARM SoC along with the change in
> firmware driver. However it is also fine if you want to merge this
> independently as there is no strict dependency. Let me know either way.

I don't mind either way. If you want to send it in along with the
firmware change then that's fine.

Reviewed-by: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>