linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/6] clk: actions: Fix SD clocks factor table on Owl S500 SoC

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: <20210316035845.GB1798@thinkpad>
Date:   Tue, 16 Mar 2021 09:28:45 +0530
From:   Manivannan Sadhasivam <manivannan.sadhasivam@...aro.org>
To:     Cristian Ciocaltea <cristian.ciocaltea@...il.com>
Cc:     Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>, Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Andreas Färber <afaerber@...e.de>,
        Michael Turquette <mturquette@...libre.com>,
        Edgar Bernardi Righi <edgar.righi@...tec.org.br>,
        linux-clk@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-actions@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/6] clk: actions: Fix SD clocks factor table on Owl S500
 SoC

On Mon, Mar 08, 2021 at 07:18:27PM +0200, Cristian Ciocaltea wrote:
> Drop the unsupported entries in the factor table used for the SD[0-2]
> clocks definitions on the Actions Semi Owl S500 SoC.
> 
> Fixes: ed6b4795ece4 ("clk: actions: Add clock driver for S500 SoC")
> Signed-off-by: Cristian Ciocaltea <cristian.ciocaltea@...il.com>
> ---
>  drivers/clk/actions/owl-s500.c | 4 ----
>  1 file changed, 4 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/clk/actions/owl-s500.c b/drivers/clk/actions/owl-s500.c
> index 75b7186185b0..69cd959205f5 100644
> --- a/drivers/clk/actions/owl-s500.c
> +++ b/drivers/clk/actions/owl-s500.c
> @@ -127,8 +127,6 @@ static struct clk_factor_table sd_factor_table[] = {
>  	{ 12, 1, 13 }, { 13, 1, 14 }, { 14, 1, 15 }, { 15, 1, 16 },
>  	{ 16, 1, 17 }, { 17, 1, 18 }, { 18, 1, 19 }, { 19, 1, 20 },
>  	{ 20, 1, 21 }, { 21, 1, 22 }, { 22, 1, 23 }, { 23, 1, 24 },
> -	{ 24, 1, 25 }, { 25, 1, 26 }, { 26, 1, 27 }, { 27, 1, 28 },
> -	{ 28, 1, 29 }, { 29, 1, 30 }, { 30, 1, 31 }, { 31, 1, 32 },

How did you determine that these values are not supported?

I've seen cases where the datasheet has the incomplete information about the
supported ranges but the downstream driver has everything.

Thanks,
Mani

>  
>  	/* bit8: /128 */
>  	{ 256, 1, 1 * 128 }, { 257, 1, 2 * 128 }, { 258, 1, 3 * 128 }, { 259, 1, 4 * 128 },
> @@ -137,8 +135,6 @@ static struct clk_factor_table sd_factor_table[] = {
>  	{ 268, 1, 13 * 128 }, { 269, 1, 14 * 128 }, { 270, 1, 15 * 128 }, { 271, 1, 16 * 128 },
>  	{ 272, 1, 17 * 128 }, { 273, 1, 18 * 128 }, { 274, 1, 19 * 128 }, { 275, 1, 20 * 128 },
>  	{ 276, 1, 21 * 128 }, { 277, 1, 22 * 128 }, { 278, 1, 23 * 128 }, { 279, 1, 24 * 128 },
> -	{ 280, 1, 25 * 128 }, { 281, 1, 26 * 128 }, { 282, 1, 27 * 128 }, { 283, 1, 28 * 128 },
> -	{ 284, 1, 29 * 128 }, { 285, 1, 30 * 128 }, { 286, 1, 31 * 128 }, { 287, 1, 32 * 128 },
>  	{ 0, 0, 0 },
>  };
>  
> -- 
> 2.30.1
>