linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V2 3/6] clk: qcom: clk-alpha-pll: Remove explicit CAL

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, 26 May 2023 16:57:34 +0100
From:   Bryan O'Donoghue <bryan.odonoghue@...aro.org>
To:     Jagadeesh Kona <quic_jkona@...cinc.com>,
        Andy Gross <agross@...nel.org>,
        Michael Turquette <mturquette@...libre.com>,
        Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
        Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>
Cc:     Bjorn Andersson <andersson@...nel.org>,
        Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@...aro.org>,
        Vladimir Zapolskiy <vladimir.zapolskiy@...aro.org>,
        Vinod Koul <vkoul@...nel.org>, linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-clk@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Taniya Das <quic_tdas@...cinc.com>,
        Satya Priya Kakitapalli <quic_skakitap@...cinc.com>,
        Imran Shaik <quic_imrashai@...cinc.com>,
        Ajit Pandey <quic_ajipan@...cinc.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 3/6] clk: qcom: clk-alpha-pll: Remove explicit CAL_L
 configuration for EVO PLL

On 26/05/2023 16:54, Bryan O'Donoghue wrote:
> On 25/05/2023 18:21, Jagadeesh Kona wrote:
>> Fixes: 260e36606a03 ("clk: qcom: clk-alpha-pll: add Lucid EVO PLL 
>> configuration interfaces")
> 
> Is this a "Fixes" without the previous patch to stuff the CAL_L_VAL and 
> VAL_L fields ?
> 
> [PATCH V2 3/6] clk: qcom: clk-alpha-pll: Remove explicit CAL_L 
> configuration for EVO PLL
> 
> Surely you need _both_ with this patch depending on the previous, per 
> your comment ?
> 
> -    .l = 0x3e,
> +    /* .l includes CAL_L_VAL, L_VAL fields */
> +    .l = 0x0044003e,
> 
> ---
> bod

i.e. if you pick up this patch on its own you won't populate 
CAL_L_VAL... right ?

It would make more sense to squash the two patches.

---
bod