linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 1/6] clk: divider: Implement and wire up .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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Thu, 14 Oct 2021 23:34:54 +0200
From:   Martin Blumenstingl <martin.blumenstingl@...glemail.com>
To:     Alex Bee <knaerzche@...il.com>
Cc:     linux-clk@...r.kernel.org, sboyd@...nel.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Heiko Stübner <heiko@...ech.de>,
        linux-rockchip@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/6] clk: divider: Implement and wire up
 .determine_rate by default

On Thu, Oct 14, 2021 at 2:11 PM Martin Blumenstingl
<martin.blumenstingl@...glemail.com> wrote:
[...]
> > Reverting this commit makes it work again: Unless there is a quick and
> > obvious fix for that, I guess this should be done for 5.15 - even if the
> > real issue is somewhere else.
> Reverting this patch is fine from the Amlogic SoC point of view.
> The main goal was to clean up / improve the CCF code.
> Nothing (that I am aware of) is going to break in Amlogic land if we
> revert this.
Unfortunately only now I realized that reverting this patch would also
require reverting the other five patches in this series (since they
depend on this one).
For this reason I propose changing the order of the checks in
clk-composite.c - see the attached patch (which I can send as a proper
one once agreed that this is the way to go forward)

Off-list Alex also suggested that I should use rate_ops.determine_rate
if available.
While I agree that this makes sense in general my plan is to do this
in a follow-up patch.
Changing the order of the conditions is needed anyways and it *should*
fix the issue reported here (but I have no way of testing that
unfortunately).

Alex, it would be great if you (or someone with Rockchip boards) could
test the attached patch and let me know if it fixes the reported
problem.


Best regards,
Martin

View attachment "0001-clk-composite-Also-consider-.determine_rate-for-rate.patch" of type "text/x-patch" (3151 bytes)