linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] clk: mediatek: clk-mux: Add .determine

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:   Fri, 14 Oct 2022 12:36:50 -0700
From:   Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>
To:     AngeloGioacchino Del Regno 
        <angelogioacchino.delregno@...labora.com>,
        Maxime Ripard <maxime@...no.tech>
Cc:     mturquette@...libre.com, matthias.bgg@...il.com,
        chun-jie.chen@...iatek.com, miles.chen@...iatek.com,
        wenst@...omium.org, linux-clk@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-mediatek@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] clk: mediatek: clk-mux: Add .determine_rate() callback

Quoting Maxime Ripard (2022-10-12 06:56:19)
> 
> I think we need to address this in multiple ways:
> 
> - If you have ftrace enabled on that platform, running with "tp_printk
>   trace_event=clk:*" in the kernel command line on a failing kernel would
>   be great, so that we can figure out what is happening exactly.
> 
> - We really need to merge your patch above as well;
> 
> - And, if we can, we should forbid to register a mux without a
>   determine_rate implementation. We have to take into account that some
>   muxes are going to be RO and won't need a determine_rate
>   implementation at all, but a clock with a set_parent and without a
>   determine_rate seems like a weird combination.
> 

So should I apply this patch now on clk-next? Given this regression I'm
leaning towards not sending off the clk rate request this merge window
and letting it bake another cycle.