linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] [RFT] clk: samsung: add support for CPU clocks

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]

Date:   Fri, 15 Oct 2021 16:36:31 +0200
From:   Sylwester Nawrocki <snawrocki@...nel.org>
To:     Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>,
        Will McVicker <willmcvicker@...gle.com>
Cc:     Chanwoo Choi <cw00.choi@...sung.com>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...onical.com>,
        Michael Turquette <mturquette@...libre.com>,
        Sylwester Nawrocki <s.nawrocki@...sung.com>,
        Tomasz Figa <tomasz.figa@...il.com>,
        Android Kernel <kernel-team@...roid.com>,
        linux-samsung-soc <linux-samsung-soc@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-clk <linux-clk@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] [RFT] clk: samsung: add support for CPU clocks

On 14.10.2021 23:40, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> Quoting Will McVicker (2021-10-14 12:35:57)
>> On Wed, Oct 13, 2021 at 6:49 PM Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org> wrote:
>>> Quoting Will McVicker (2021-10-13 15:10:19)
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/clk/samsung/clk-cpu.c b/drivers/clk/samsung/clk-cpu.c

>>>
>>>> +               if (parent_clk)
>>>> +                       parent_clk_hw = __clk_get_hw(parent_clk);
>>>> +               alt_parent_clk = __clk_lookup(list->alt_parent_name);
>>>
>>> Can the DT binding be updated?
>>
>> Are you referring to removing alt_parent and just adding it as another
>> parent clock?
>>
> 
> I was wondering if this is an external clk that feeds into here or if it
> is all internal to the clk controller. It sounds like it's all internal
> to the clk controller? In which case a binding update isn't needed.

Yes, I double checked and the cpu parent clocks are always internal to
the clock provider. There is one exception where physically a parent clock
comes from other CMU (exynos5250), but in that case all CMUs are modeled
as a single clk provider anyway. Thus we don't need a binding update.