linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 1/5] regmap: mmio: Don't unprepare attached clock

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

Date:   Mon, 8 Aug 2022 16:42:28 +0200
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
To:     Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
Cc:     Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
        Aidan MacDonald <aidanmacdonald.0x0@...il.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/5] regmap: mmio: Don't unprepare attached clock

On Mon, Aug 8, 2022 at 3:48 PM Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 08, 2022 at 03:41:48PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 8, 2022 at 3:19 PM Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> > > regmap_mmio_attach_clk() prepares the clock that's passed in, we should
> > > undo that when detaching otherwise we're leaking a prepare (as we do in
> > > the explicit detach).
>
> > Why do we allow the user to avoid explicit detach? What is the point
> > of having that API in the case we take care of it?
>
> I think just for symmetry so it's obvious that error handling is
> happening if people want it to be.

So, the only user of that API calls it explicitly. Should I rewrite a
commit message somehow?

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko