linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 4/5] clk: x86: Support RV architecture

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: <c671c1a6-6d4c-f57d-7d60-d62ee84a56ea@amd.com>
Date:   Mon, 20 Jul 2020 10:29:36 +0530
From:   "Agrawal, Akshu" <aagrawal2@....com>
To:     Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>, akshu.agrawal@....com
Cc:     Michael Turquette <mturquette@...libre.com>,
        linux-clk@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/5] clk: x86: Support RV architecture


On 7/16/2020 6:33 AM, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> Quoting Akshu Agrawal (2020-07-12 17:59:52)
>> There is minor difference between previous family of SoC and
>> the current one. Which is the there is only 48Mh fixed clk.
>> There is no mux and no option to select another freq as there in previous.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Akshu Agrawal <akshu.agrawal@....com>
>> ---
> I only see four out of five patches and there isn't a cover letter. I
> have no idea if I can apply this change or if you're expecting me to ack
> it. Please help make my life a little easier!

Numbering went wrong due to another unrelated patch.

Will send another with cover letter explaining the series.

>>   drivers/clk/x86/clk-fch.c | 55 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------
>>   1 file changed, 40 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/clk/x86/clk-fch.c b/drivers/clk/x86/clk-fch.c
>> index b252f0cf0628..a8aac71a3b65 100644
>> --- a/drivers/clk/x86/clk-fch.c
>> +++ b/drivers/clk/x86/clk-fch.c
>> @@ -61,9 +78,17 @@ static int fch_clk_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>>   static int fch_clk_remove(struct platform_device *pdev)
>>   {
>>          int i;
>> +       struct fch_clk_data *fch_data;
>> +
>> +       fch_data = dev_get_platdata(&pdev->dev);
>>   
>> -       for (i = 0; i < ST_MAX_CLKS; i++)
>> -               clk_hw_unregister(hws[i]);
>> +       if (!fch_data->is_rv) {
>> +               for (i = 0; i < ST_MAX_CLKS; i++)
>> +                       clk_hw_unregister(hws[i]);
>> +       } else {
>> +               for (i = 0; i < RV_MAX_CLKS; i++)
>> +                       clk_hw_unregister(hws[i]);
> Can ST_MAX_CLKS or RV_MAX_CLKS be a local variable and then the loop
> consolidated.

Yes, making the change in next series.

Thanks,

Akshu