linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH v18 05/10] clk: Add Sunplus SP7021 clock driver

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>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <aaf96491f1a94b5694003797853aa732@cqplus1.com>
Date:   Wed, 15 Jun 2022 02:25:22 +0000
From:   qinjian[覃健] <qinjian@...lus1.com>
To:     Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>
CC:     "krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org" 
        <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
        "robh+dt@...nel.org" <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        "mturquette@...libre.com" <mturquette@...libre.com>,
        "linux@...linux.org.uk" <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
        "arnd@...db.de" <arnd@...db.de>, "olof@...om.net" <olof@...om.net>,
        "soc@...nel.org" <soc@...nel.org>,
        "linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
        <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        "devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-clk@...r.kernel.org" <linux-clk@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v18 05/10] clk: Add Sunplus SP7021 clock driver

> > diff --git a/drivers/clk/clk-sp7021.c b/drivers/clk/clk-sp7021.c
> > new file mode 100644
> > index 000000000..0caef1bc7
> > --- /dev/null
> > +++ b/drivers/clk/clk-sp7021.c
> > @@ -0,0 +1,725 @@
> > +// SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0-only OR BSD-2-Clause)
> 
> This isn't a common license on driver files. Is it intended? Or
> copy/paste from DT?

Yes, I copy/paste from DT.
Did I need changed it to 'GPL-2.0-only'?

> 
> > +/*
> > + * Copyright (C) Sunplus Technology Co., Ltd.
> > + *       All rights reserved.
> > + */
> [...]
> > +
> > +static int sp7021_clk_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> > +{
> [...]
> > +
> > +       /* gates */
> > +       for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(sp_clk_gates); i++) {
> > +               char name[10];
> > +               u32 j = sp_clk_gates[i].reg;
> > +               struct clk_parent_data *pd = sp_clk_gates[i].ext_parent ? &pd_ext : &pd_sys;
> > +
> > +               sprintf(name, "%02d_0x%02x", i, j);
> > +               hws[i] = clk_hw_register_gate_parent_data(dev, name, pd, 0,
> 
> This needs to be devm as well. Otherwise if the driver is unbound we'll
> leak these registered clks.
> 

clk-provider.h:
struct clk_hw *__devm_clk_hw_register_gate(struct device *dev,
		struct device_node *np, const char *name,
		const char *parent_name, const struct clk_hw *parent_hw,
		const struct clk_parent_data *parent_data,
		unsigned long flags,
		void __iomem *reg, u8 bit_idx,
		u8 clk_gate_flags, spinlock_t *lock);
#define devm_clk_hw_register_gate(dev, name, parent_name, flags, reg, bit_idx,\
				  clk_gate_flags, lock)			      \
	__devm_clk_hw_register_gate((dev), NULL, (name), (parent_name), NULL, \
			       NULL, (flags), (reg), (bit_idx),		      \
			       (clk_gate_flags), (lock))

Should I use __devm_clk_hw_register_gate() with parent_data
or
devm_clk_hw_register_gate() with parent_name?