linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] clk: imx93: Drop macro IMX93_CLK

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2024 09:44:42 +0200
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>
To: Pengfei Li <pengfei.li_1@....com>, krzk+dt@...nel.org, robh@...nel.org,
 abelvesa@...nel.org, mturquette@...libre.com, sboyd@...nel.org,
 conor+dt@...nel.org, shawnguo@...nel.org, s.hauer@...gutronix.de,
 ping.bai@....com, ye.li@....com, peng.fan@....com, aisheng.dong@....com,
 frank.li@....com
Cc: kernel@...gutronix.de, festevam@...il.com, linux-clk@...r.kernel.org,
 imx@...ts.linux.dev, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] clk: imx93: Drop macro IMX93_CLK_END

On 25/06/2024 19:51, Pengfei Li wrote:
> IMX93_CLK_END was previously defined in imx93-clock.h to
> indicate the number of clocks, but it is not part of the
> ABI, so it should be dropped.
> 
> Now, the driver gets the number of clks by querying the
> maximum index in the clk array. Due to the discontinuity
> in the definition of clk index, with some gaps present,
> the total count cannot be obtained by summing the array
> size.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Pengfei Li <pengfei.li_1@....com>
> ---
>  drivers/clk/imx/clk-imx93.c | 25 +++++++++++++++++++++----
>  1 file changed, 21 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/clk/imx/clk-imx93.c b/drivers/clk/imx/clk-imx93.c
> index c6a9bc8ecc1f..68c929512e16 100644
> --- a/drivers/clk/imx/clk-imx93.c
> +++ b/drivers/clk/imx/clk-imx93.c
> @@ -257,6 +257,20 @@ static const struct imx93_clk_ccgr {
>  static struct clk_hw_onecell_data *clk_hw_data;
>  static struct clk_hw **clks;
>  
> +static int imx_clks_get_num(void)
> +{
> +	u32 val = 0;
> +	int i;
> +
> +	for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(root_array); i++)
> +		val = max_t(u32, val, root_array[i].clk);
> +
> +	for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(ccgr_array); i++)
> +		val = max_t(u32, val, ccgr_array[i].clk);
> +
> +	return val + 1;
> +}
> +
>  static int imx93_clocks_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>  {
>  	struct device *dev = &pdev->dev;
> @@ -264,14 +278,17 @@ static int imx93_clocks_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>  	const struct imx93_clk_root *root;
>  	const struct imx93_clk_ccgr *ccgr;
>  	void __iomem *base, *anatop_base;
> +	int clks_num;
>  	int i, ret;
>  
> +	clks_num = imx_clks_get_num();
> +
>  	clk_hw_data = devm_kzalloc(dev, struct_size(clk_hw_data, hws,
> -					  IMX93_CLK_END), GFP_KERNEL);
> +					  clks_num), GFP_KERNEL);
>  	if (!clk_hw_data)
>  		return -ENOMEM;
>  
> -	clk_hw_data->num = IMX93_CLK_END;
> +	clk_hw_data->num = clks_num;

Why so complicated code instead of pre-processor define or array size?

Best regards,
Krzysztof