linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 7/7] cpufreq: qcom-hw: Add CPU clock provider support

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: <20221102042849.q3qnaoebeudpbpnv@vireshk-i7>
Date:   Wed, 2 Nov 2022 09:58:49 +0530
From:   Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
To:     Manivannan Sadhasivam <manivannan.sadhasivam@...aro.org>
Cc:     andersson@...nel.org, krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org,
        rafael@...nel.org, robh+dt@...nel.org, johan@...nel.org,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 7/7] cpufreq: qcom-hw: Add CPU clock provider support

On 25-10-22, 13:02, Manivannan Sadhasivam wrote:
>  	for (i = 0; i < num_domains; i++) {
>  		struct qcom_cpufreq_data *data = &qcom_cpufreq.data[i];
> +		static struct clk_init_data init = {};

Why not make this part of a driver level structure instead of static ?
And what will {} do ? Initialize to 0 ? static would have already done
that.

-- 
viresh