linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC v1 3/3] clk: meson: pll: switch to determine

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: <1j1ra2dajh.fsf@starbuckisacylon.baylibre.com>
Date:   Wed, 19 May 2021 17:10:26 +0200
From:   Jerome Brunet <jbrunet@...libre.com>
To:     Martin Blumenstingl <martin.blumenstingl@...glemail.com>
Cc:     mturquette@...libre.com, sboyd@...nel.org,
        Neil Armstrong <narmstrong@...libre.com>,
        linux-clk@...r.kernel.org, khilman@...libre.com,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-amlogic@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC v1 3/3] clk: meson: pll: switch to determine_rate
 for the PLL ops


On Tue 18 May 2021 at 22:17, Martin Blumenstingl <martin.blumenstingl@...glemail.com> wrote:

> Hi Jerome,
>
> On Tue, May 18, 2021 at 9:50 AM Jerome Brunet <jbrunet@...libre.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Mon 17 May 2021 at 22:37, Martin Blumenstingl <martin.blumenstingl@...glemail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > This increases the maxmium supported frequency on 32-bit systems from
>> > 2^31 (signed long as used by clk_ops.round_rate, maximum value:
>> > approx. 2.14GHz) to 2^32 (unsigned long as used by
>> > clk_ops.determine_rate, maximum value: approx. 4.29GHz).
>> > On Meson8/8b/8m2 the HDMI PLL and it's OD (post-dividers) are
>> > capable of running at up to 2.97GHz. So switch the divider
>> > implementation in clk-regmap to clk_ops.determine_rate to support these
>> > higher frequencies on 32-bit systems.
>> >
>> > Signed-off-by: Martin Blumenstingl <martin.blumenstingl@...glemail.com>
>>
>> Looks good. I see no reason to keep this one as RFC.
> Great, thanks for checking!
>
>> I can take it directly if this is OK with you ?
> That would be amazing.
> Obviously no objections from my side :-)
>
>
> Best regards,
> Martin

Applied then. Thx