linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] mips: bcm63xx: add support for clk_set

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: <20220103195146.GB10983@alpha.franken.de>
Date:   Mon, 3 Jan 2022 20:51:46 +0100
From:   Thomas Bogendoerfer <tsbogend@...ha.franken.de>
To:     Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mips@...r.kernel.org,
        Paul Cercueil <paul@...pouillou.net>,
        Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>,
        Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@...afoo.de>,
        Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
        Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>,
        Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
        bcm-kernel-feedback-list@...adcom.com, alsa-devel@...a-project.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mips: bcm63xx: add support for clk_set_parent()

On Tue, Dec 28, 2021 at 04:05:53PM -0800, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> The MIPS BMC63XX subarch does not provide/support clk_set_parent().
> This causes build errors in a few drivers, so add a simple implementation
> of that function so that callers of it will build without errors.
> 
> Fixes these build errors:
> 
> ERROR: modpost: "clk_set_parent" [sound/soc/jz4740/snd-soc-jz4740-i2s.ko] undefined!
> ERROR: modpost: "clk_set_parent" [sound/soc/atmel/snd-soc-atmel-i2s.ko] undefined!
> 
> Fixes: e7300d04bd08 ("MIPS: BCM63xx: Add support for the Broadcom BCM63xx family of SOCs." )
> Signed-off-by: Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>
> ---
>  arch/mips/bcm63xx/clk.c |    6 ++++++
>  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)

applied to mips-next.

Thomas.

-- 
Crap can work. Given enough thrust pigs will fly, but it's not necessarily a
good idea.                                                [ RFC1925, 2.3 ]