linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/3] dt-bindings: mailbox: mediatek: Avoid clock-names on MT8188 GCE

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: Thu, 20 Jun 2024 09:22:02 +0100
From: Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@...rochip.com>
To: AngeloGioacchino Del Regno <angelogioacchino.delregno@...labora.com>
CC: Conor Dooley <conor@...nel.org>, <krzk+dt@...nel.org>,
	<mturquette@...libre.com>, <sboyd@...nel.org>, <robh@...nel.org>,
	<conor+dt@...nel.org>, <matthias.bgg@...il.com>, <jassisinghbrar@...il.com>,
	<garmin.chang@...iatek.com>, <houlong.wei@...iatek.com>,
	<Jason-ch.Chen@...iatek.com>, <amergnat@...libre.com>,
	<Elvis.Wang@...iatek.com>, <linux-clk@...r.kernel.org>,
	<devicetree@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>, <linux-mediatek@...ts.infradead.org>,
	<kernel@...labora.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] dt-bindings: mailbox: mediatek: Avoid clock-names on
 MT8188 GCE

On Thu, Jun 20, 2024 at 10:01:18AM +0200, AngeloGioacchino Del Regno wrote:
> Il 19/06/24 19:49, Conor Dooley ha scritto:
> > On Wed, Jun 19, 2024 at 10:53:22AM +0200, AngeloGioacchino Del Regno wrote:
> > > Add mediatek,mt8188-gce to the list of compatibles for which the
> > > clock-names property is not required.
> > 
> > Because, I assume, it has some internal clock? Why do either of these
> > things have no clock? Doesn't the internal logic require one?
> > 
> 
> Because there's no gce0/gce1 clock, there's only an infracfg_AO clock that is
> for one GCE instance, hence there's no need to require clock-names.

clock-names, d'oh. I misread that completely yesterday.

> I can't remove the clock-names requirement from the older compatibles though,
> because the (sorry about this word) driver (eh..) gets the clock by name for
> the single GCE SoCs...
> 
> ...and here comes a self-NACK for this commit, I have to fix the driver and
> then stop requiring clock-names on all compatibles, instead of having this
> ugly nonsense.

Is it not worth keeping the clock names, even if ugly or w/e, because
things have been done that way for a while?
Also, what does U-Boot do on these systems to get the clocks?

> Self-note: gce0/gce1 clocks lookup was implemented in the driver but never
> used and never added to the binding - luckily.
> 
> Sorry Conor, I just acknowledged that there's a better way of doing that.
> 
> Thank you for making me re-read this stuff, I'll send the proper changes
> later today, driver change + binding change in a separate series.
> 
> As for the other two commits in this series, completely unrelated to GCE,
> those are still fine, and are fixing dtbs_check warnings.

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (229 bytes)