linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] clk: fractional-divider: Improve approximation when zero based

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:   Mon, 12 Jun 2023 14:39:00 -0700
From:   Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>
To:     Frank Oltmanns <frank@...manns.dev>,
        Michael Turquette <mturquette@...libre.com>
Cc:     Frank Oltmanns <frank@...manns.dev>,
        Abel Vesa <abelvesa@...nel.org>, Peng Fan <peng.fan@....com>,
        Shawn Guo <shawnguo@...nel.org>,
        Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@...gutronix.de>,
        Pengutronix Kernel Team <kernel@...gutronix.de>,
        Fabio Estevam <festevam@...il.com>,
        NXP Linux Team <linux-imx@....com>,
        Jacky Bai <ping.bai@....com>,
        Anson Huang <Anson.Huang@....com>, linux-clk@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] clk: fractional-divider: Improve approximation when zero based

Quoting Frank Oltmanns (2023-05-29 06:34:33)
> Consider the CLK_FRAC_DIVIDER_ZERO_BASED flag when finding the best
> approximation for m and n. By doing so, increase the range of valid
> values for the numerator and denominator by 1.
> 
> Cc: A.s. Dong <aisheng.dong@....com
> Signed-off-by: Frank Oltmanns <frank@...manns.dev>
> ---
> I stumpled upon this, when familiarizing myself with clk drivers. Unfortunately,
> I have no boards to test this patch. It seems the only user of this flag in
> mainline is drivers/clk/imx/clk-composite-7ulp.c, therefore I'm cc-ing
> get_maintainers.pl --git-blame -f drivers/clk/imx/clk-composite-7ulp.c
> in the hopes of a wider audience.
> 
> Thank you for considering this contribution,

Thanks for looking at this. Can you add a kunit test (or a suite of
tests) to confirm that this doesn't break existing functionality and
also improves a case that would have failed or been suboptimal before?