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 15:52:15 -0700
From:   Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>
To:     Alex Bee <knaerzche@...il.com>,
        Martin Blumenstingl <martin.blumenstingl@...glemail.com>
Cc:     linux-clk@...r.kernel.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

Quoting Martin Blumenstingl (2021-10-14 14:34:54)
> 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.
> 

I can't read your attached patch. Please send it inline.