linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/3] clk: twl: add clock driver for TWL6032

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: <20230823165159.108875d0@aktux>
Date:   Wed, 23 Aug 2023 16:51:59 +0200
From:   Andreas Kemnade <andreas@...nade.info>
To:     Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>
Cc:     bcousson@...libre.com, conor+dt@...nel.org,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org, krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org,
        linux-clk@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-omap@...r.kernel.org, mturquette@...libre.com,
        robh+dt@...nel.org, tony@...mide.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] clk: twl: add clock driver for TWL6032

On Tue, 22 Aug 2023 15:34:59 -0700
Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org> wrote:

> Quoting Andreas Kemnade (2023-08-19 06:41:46)
> > diff --git a/drivers/clk/clk-twl.c b/drivers/clk/clk-twl.c
> > new file mode 100644
> > index 0000000000000..deb5742393bac
> > --- /dev/null
> > +++ b/drivers/clk/clk-twl.c
[...]
> > +
> > +static struct platform_driver twl_clks_driver = {
> > +       .driver = {
> > +               .name = "twl-clk",
> > +               .of_match_table = twl_clks_of_match,
> > +       },
> > +       .probe = twl_clks_probe,
> > +       .remove_new = twl_clks_remove,
> > +};
> > +
> > +module_platform_driver(twl_clks_driver);
> > +
> > +MODULE_DESCRIPTION("Clock driver for TWL Series Devices");
> > +MODULE_ALIAS("platform:twl-clk");  
> 
> This alias is unnecessary?
> 
The question is whether this driver should have a separate dt
node (and if a separate node, then one per clock as the clk-palmas
driver) or not. See Rob's review of the binding document.
So we have basically #clock-cells = <1>; in the twl parent
and a call to mfd_add_device() there in the former case and I guess
that alias is needed then.

But if the overall structure stays as in this version,
then I doubt that we need that alias.

Regards,
Andreas