linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/3] memory: atmel-sdramc: remove the driver

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:   Tue, 3 Jan 2023 13:00:25 +0100
From:   Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
To:     Claudiu.Beznea@...rochip.com, mturquette@...libre.com,
        sboyd@...nel.org, Nicolas.Ferre@...rochip.com,
        alexandre.belloni@...tlin.com
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-clk@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] memory: atmel-sdramc: remove the driver

On 03/01/2023 12:18, Claudiu.Beznea@...rochip.com wrote:
> On 03.01.2023 12:06, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe
>>
>> On 03/01/2023 11:00, Claudiu.Beznea@...rochip.com wrote:
>>> Hi, Krzysztof,
>>>
>>> On 08.12.2022 13:45, Claudiu Beznea wrote:
>>>> Driver does only clock request + enable for DDR clocks. DDR clocks are
>>>> enabled by bootloader and need to stay that way in Linux. To avoid having
>>>> these clocks disabled by clock subsystem in case there are no Linux
>>>> consumers for them the clocks were marked as critical in clock drivers.
>>>> With this, there is no need to have a separate driver that only does
>>>> clock request + enable.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Claudiu Beznea <claudiu.beznea@...rochip.com>
>>>
>>> As this patch depends on patch 1/3 from this series, can I have your ack
>>> for it to take it though clock tree?
>>
>> Uh, why does it depend? I understood the changset is bisectable and
>> removal of unneeded driver will happen later. Otherwise it is not
>> bisectable...
> 
> AT91 devices will fail to boot if this patch is applied and 1/3 is not
> there. This is because clock framework will disable DDR clocks because
> there will be no consumer for them.

This I understand, but why do you need this patch to be able to apply
1/3? This is problem of bisectability. Not the other way.

Best regards,
Krzysztof