linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 08/18] phy: ti: phy-j721e-wiz: split wiz_clock

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, 16 Feb 2024 14:34:39 +0530
From: Siddharth Vadapalli <s-vadapalli@...com>
To: Vinod Koul <vkoul@...nel.org>
CC: Andy Shevchenko <andy@...nel.org>,
        Thomas Richard
	<thomas.richard@...tlin.com>,
        Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
        Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl>, Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>,
        Haojian Zhuang <haojian.zhuang@...aro.org>,
        Vignesh R <vigneshr@...com>, Aaro
 Koskinen <aaro.koskinen@....fi>,
        Janusz Krzysztofik <jmkrzyszt@...il.com>,
        Andi Shyti <andi.shyti@...nel.org>, Peter Rosin <peda@...ntia.se>,
        Kishon
 Vijay Abraham I <kishon@...nel.org>,
        Philipp Zabel <p.zabel@...gutronix.de>,
        Lorenzo Pieralisi <lpieralisi@...nel.org>,
        Krzysztof
 Wilczyński <kw@...ux.com>,
        Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>, Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
        <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>, <linux-omap@...r.kernel.org>,
        <linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-phy@...ts.infradead.org>,
        <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>, <gregory.clement@...tlin.com>,
        <theo.lebrun@...tlin.com>, <thomas.petazzoni@...tlin.com>,
        <u-kumar1@...com>, <s-vadapalli@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 08/18] phy: ti: phy-j721e-wiz: split wiz_clock_init()
 function

On 24/02/16 11:32AM, Vinod Koul wrote:
> On 15-02-24, 17:43, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 15, 2024 at 04:17:53PM +0100, Thomas Richard wrote:
> > > The wiz_clock_init() function mixes probe and hardware configuration.
> > > Rename the wiz_clock_init() to wiz_clock_probe() and move the hardware
> > > configuration part in a new function named wiz_clock_init().
> > > 
> > > This hardware configuration sequence must be called during the resume
> > > stage of the driver.
> > 
> > ...
> > 
> > (Side note, as this can be done later)
> > 
> > >  	if (rate >= 100000000)
> > 
> > > +		if (rate >= 100000000)
> > 
> > > +	if (rate >= 100000000)
> > 
> > I would make local definition and use it, we may get the global one as there
> > are users.
> > 
> > #define HZ_PER_GHZ	1000000000UL
> 
> Better to define as:
> #define HZ_PER_GHZ 1 * GIGA

The variable "rate" is being compared against 100 MHz and not 1 GHz.
The driver already has the following macros defined:
#define REF_CLK_19_2MHZ         19200000
#define REF_CLK_25MHZ           25000000
#define REF_CLK_100MHZ          100000000
#define REF_CLK_156_25MHZ       156250000

So would it be acceptable to change it to:
	if (rate >= REF_CLK_100MHZ)
instead?

Regards,
Siddharth.