linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 2/3] clk: qcom: lpass-sc7180: Disentangle the two clock devices

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: <160271345117.884498.6375969749730135625@swboyd.mtv.corp.google.com>
Date:   Wed, 14 Oct 2020 15:10:51 -0700
From:   Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>
To:     Douglas Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>
Cc:     Taniya Das <tdas@...eaurora.org>, linux-soc@...r.kernel.org,
        David Brown <david.brown@...aro.org>,
        Rajendra Nayak <rnayak@...eaurora.org>,
        Douglas Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>,
        Andy Gross <agross@...nel.org>,
        Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@...aro.org>,
        Michael Turquette <mturquette@...libre.com>,
        linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, linux-clk@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/3] clk: qcom: lpass-sc7180: Disentangle the two clock devices

Quoting Douglas Anderson (2020-10-14 14:05:22)
> diff --git a/drivers/clk/qcom/lpasscorecc-sc7180.c b/drivers/clk/qcom/lpasscorecc-sc7180.c
> index abcf36006926..48d370e2108e 100644
> --- a/drivers/clk/qcom/lpasscorecc-sc7180.c
> +++ b/drivers/clk/qcom/lpasscorecc-sc7180.c
> @@ -356,12 +356,48 @@ static const struct qcom_cc_desc lpass_audio_hm_sc7180_desc = {
>         .num_gdscs = ARRAY_SIZE(lpass_audio_hm_sc7180_gdscs),
>  };
>  
> +static void lpass_pm_runtime_disable(void *data)
> +{
> +       pm_runtime_disable(data);
> +}
> +
> +static void lapss_pm_clk_destroy(void *data)
> +{
> +       pm_clk_destroy(data);
> +}

Why are these helpers added again? And do we even need them? Can't we
just pass pm_runtime_disable or pm_clk_destroy to the
devm_add_action_or_reset() second parameter?