linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC v2 1/5] dt-bindings: clock: histb-clock: Add missing common clock and Hi3798MV200 specific clock definition

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:
 <SEZPR06MB695996DD12D23D13D3579A8996502@SEZPR06MB6959.apcprd06.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2024 00:31:39 +0800
From: Yang Xiwen <forbidden405@...look.com>
To: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.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: David Yang <mmyangfl@...il.com>, linux-clk@...r.kernel.org,
 devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC v2 1/5] dt-bindings: clock: histb-clock: Add missing
 common clock and Hi3798MV200 specific clock definition

On 2/21/2024 12:25 AM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 20/02/2024 17:19, Yang Xiwen wrote:
>> On 2/21/2024 12:13 AM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>> On 20/02/2024 15:06, Yang Xiwen wrote:
>>>> On 2/20/2024 6:10 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>>>> On 17/02/2024 13:52, Yang Xiwen via B4 Relay wrote:
>>>>>> From: Yang Xiwen <forbidden405@...look.com>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> According to the datasheet, some clocks are missing, add their
>>>>>> definitions first.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Some aliases for hi3798mv200 are also introduced.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Yang Xiwen <forbidden405@...look.com>
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>     include/dt-bindings/clock/histb-clock.h | 21 +++++++++++++++++++++
>>>>>>     1 file changed, 21 insertions(+)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> diff --git a/include/dt-bindings/clock/histb-clock.h b/include/dt-bindings/clock/histb-clock.h
>>>>>> index e64e5770ada6..68a53053586a 100644
>>>>>> --- a/include/dt-bindings/clock/histb-clock.h
>>>>>> +++ b/include/dt-bindings/clock/histb-clock.h
>>>>>> @@ -58,6 +58,27 @@
>>>>>>     #define HISTB_USB3_UTMI_CLK1		48
>>>>>>     #define HISTB_USB3_PIPE_CLK1		49
>>>>>>     #define HISTB_USB3_SUSPEND_CLK1		50
>>>>>> +#define HISTB_SDIO1_BIU_CLK		51
>>>>>> +#define HISTB_SDIO1_CIU_CLK		52
>>>>>> +#define HISTB_SDIO1_DRV_CLK		53
>>>>>> +#define HISTB_SDIO1_SAMPLE_CLK		54
>>>>>> +#define HISTB_ETH0_PHY_CLK		55
>>>>>> +#define HISTB_ETH1_PHY_CLK		56
>>>>>> +#define HISTB_WDG0_CLK			57
>>>>>> +#define HISTB_USB2_UTMI0_CLK		HISTB_USB2_UTMI_CLK
>>>>> Why? It's anyway placed oddly, the entries are ordered by number/value.
>>>> So this is somewhat broken at the beginning. It named after
>>>> histb-clock.h but actually they are all clocks for Hi3798CV200 SoC. For
>>>> Hi3798MV200(also a HiSTB SoC), there is one additional UTMI clock.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> What solution do you prefer? rename UTMI_CLK to UTMI0_CLK, add UTMI1_CLK
>>>> after it and increment all the indexes after it? Then the diff would be
>>>> very ugly.
>>> I still don't understand what is the problem you are trying to solve
>>> here. Your commit msg says add missing ID, but that ID -
>>> HISTB_USB2_UTMI_CLK - is already there.
>>>
>>> I also do not get why there is a need to rename anything.
>>
>> Because there are two USB2_UTMI_CLKs in total, at least for Hi3798MV200.
>> UTMI1 is missing here. For other HiSTB SoCs, there could be even more.
> My comment was under UTMI0. We do not talk about UTMI1...
>
>>
>> If we add USB2_UTMI1_CLK, it looks silly to keep USB2_UTMI_CLK without
>> renaming it to UTMI0. Just like all the other clocks. E.g.
>> I2Cn_CLK(n=0,1,2,3,4) etc.., so the same for USB2_UTMI_CLK.
> Then place it next to old name and explain why it is deprecated with
> comment.


Do we need to keep the old name? I can fix all the users (only 
hi3798cv200.dtsi) in next version and drop this name directly. Is that 
okay? Should i insert UTMI1_CLK to the middle and re-index all the 
macros after it? Or simply add it to the tail?


>
> Best regards,
> Krzysztof
>

-- 
Regards,
Yang Xiwen