linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 4/4] clk: Warn if we register a mux without 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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Fri, 04 Nov 2022 11:10:11 -0700
From:   Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>
To:     Maxime Ripard <maxime@...no.tech>
Cc:     Michael Turquette <mturquette@...libre.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        AngeloGioacchino Del Regno 
        <angelogioacchino.delregno@...labora.com>,
        linux-clk@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] clk: Warn if we register a mux without determine_rate

Quoting Maxime Ripard (2022-11-03 05:33:28)
> On Tue, Oct 25, 2022 at 07:07:58PM -0700, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> > There is another case which is a leaf clk that is a mux where you only
> > expect clk_set_parent() to be used, and not clk_set_rate(). This use
> > case is odd though, so I'm not sure how much we care.
> 
> It looks like there's a good number of clocks that do indeed only
> provide get_parent / set_parent. It's hard to tell if it's an oversight
> or a choice.
> 
> I think we can make that decision explicit by providing a determine_rate
> helper that always returns the current parent and its rate. It shouldn't
> change anything from a CCF behavior point of view, and it makes it clear
> what the behavior is. And if someone wants something else, then they can
> change it to whatever they want.

Ok sounds like a plan.