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 10:32:36 +0200
From: AngeloGioacchino Del Regno <angelogioacchino.delregno@...labora.com>
To: Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@...rochip.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

Il 20/06/24 10:22, Conor Dooley ha scritto:
> 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?

It's worth allowing clock-names, but *requiring* that is unnecessary because
there is, and there will always be, only one clock...!

> Also, what does U-Boot do on these systems to get the clocks?
> 

U-Boot doesn't support GCE at all (no driver - at least upstream)...!

>> 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.