linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 2/7] clk: bcm: rpi: Add a function to retrieve the maximum

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]

Message-Id: <20220914181458.C6FCCC433C1@smtp.kernel.org>
Date:   Wed, 14 Sep 2022 11:14:56 -0700
From:   Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>
To:     Broadcom internal kernel review list 
        <bcm-kernel-feedback-list@...adcom.com>,
        Daniel Vetter <daniel@...ll.ch>,
        David Airlie <airlied@...ux.ie>, Emma Anholt <emma@...olt.net>,
        Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
        Maxime Ripard <maxime@...no.tech>,
        Maxime Ripard <mripard@...nel.org>,
        Michael Turquette <mturquette@...libre.com>,
        Ray Jui <rjui@...adcom.com>,
        Scott Branden <sbranden@...adcom.com>,
        Stefan Wahren <stefan.wahren@...e.com>
Cc:     linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-rpi-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org, Dom Cobley <popcornmix@...il.com>,
        linux-clk@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 2/7] clk: bcm: rpi: Add a function to retrieve the maximum

Quoting Stefan Wahren (2022-09-14 11:09:04)
> Am 14.09.22 um 20:05 schrieb Stephen Boyd:
> > Quoting Stefan Wahren (2022-09-14 10:45:48)
> >> Am 14.09.22 um 17:50 schrieb Stephen Boyd:
> >>> Furthermore, I wonder if even that part needs to be implemented.  Why
> >>> not make a direct call to rpi_firmware_property() and get the max rate?
> >>> All of that can live in the drm driver. Making it a generic API that
> >>> takes a 'struct clk' means that it looks like any clk can be passed,
> >>> when that isn't true. It would be better to restrict it to the one use
> >>> case so that the scope of the problem doesn't grow. I understand that it
> >>> duplicates a few lines of code, but that looks like a fair tradeoff vs.
> >>> exposing an API that can be used for other clks in the future.
> >> it would be nice to keep all the Rpi specific stuff out of the DRM
> >> driver, since there more users of it.
> > Instead of 'all' did you mean 'any'?
> yes

Why?