linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] clk: samsung: introduce nMUX for MUX clks that can reparented

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: Tue, 26 Mar 2024 17:43:39 +0000
From: André Draszik <andre.draszik@...aro.org>
To: Tudor Ambarus <tudor.ambarus@...aro.org>, peter.griffin@...aro.org, 
	krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org
Cc: alim.akhtar@...sung.com, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, 
 linux-samsung-soc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, 
 willmcvicker@...gle.com, kernel-team@...roid.com, s.nawrocki@...sung.com, 
 cw00.choi@...sung.com, mturquette@...libre.com, sboyd@...nel.org, 
 semen.protsenko@...aro.org, linux-clk@...r.kernel.org,
 jaewon02.kim@...sung.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] clk: samsung: introduce nMUX for MUX clks that
 can reparented

Hi Tudor,

On Tue, 2024-03-26 at 17:28 +0000, Tudor Ambarus wrote:
> All samsung MUX clocks that are defined with MUX() set the
> CLK_SET_RATE_NO_REPARENT flag in __MUX(), which prevents MUXes to be
> reparented during clk_set_rate().
> 
> Introduce nMUX() for MUX clocks that can be reparented.

What does n in nMUX stand for?

> [...]
>  
> +/* Used by MUX clocks where reparenting is allowed. */
> +#define __nMUX(_id, cname, pnames, o, s, w, f, mf)		\
> +	{							\
> +		.id		= _id,				\
> +		.name		= cname,			\
> +		.parent_names	= pnames,			\
> +		.num_parents	= ARRAY_SIZE(pnames),		\
> +		.flags		= f,				\
> +		.offset		= o,				\
> +		.shift		= s,				\
> +		.width		= w,				\
> +		.mux_flags	= mf,				\
> +	}

You've duplicated __MUX() and removed the CLK_SET_RATE_NO_REPARENT
from flags - I think it would make sense to instead drop the flag
from the existing __MUX(), and adjust the only two existing users
of the macro, i.e. to add it in MUX() and MUX_F().


Cheers,
Andre'