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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20200713132153.GA30377@bogus>
Date:   Mon, 13 Jul 2020 14:21:53 +0100
From:   Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>
To:     Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>
Cc:     linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-clk@...r.kernel.org,
        Michael Turquette <mturquette@...libre.com>,
        Dien Pham <dien.pham.ry@...esas.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] clk: scmi: Fix min and max rate when registering
 clocks with discrete rates

On Fri, Jul 10, 2020 at 04:50:40PM -0700, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> 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.
>

OK I have now queued and will send it to arm-soc.

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

Thanks for the review.

-- 
Regards,
Sudeep