linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 06/14] clk: qcom: clk-branch: Add support for BRANCH_HALT

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: <jcjncf5k5syvcvwxoopksisjvvmw4cvxo35nieqf63mquj57io@fumh4jnh2e4p>
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2024 01:05:08 +0300
From: Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@...aro.org>
To: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>
Cc: Bjorn Andersson <andersson@...nel.org>, 
	Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>, Konrad Dybcio <konradybcio@...nel.org>, 
	Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>, Michael Turquette <mturquette@...libre.com>, 
	Neil Armstrong <neil.armstrong@...aro.org>, Philipp Zabel <p.zabel@...gutronix.de>, 
	Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>, Taniya Das <quic_tdas@...cinc.com>, 
	linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, linux-clk@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Kalpak Kawadkar <quic_kkawadka@...cinc.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 06/14] clk: qcom: clk-branch: Add support for
 BRANCH_HALT_POLL flag

On Thu, Oct 17, 2024 at 11:03:20AM -0700, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> Quoting Dmitry Baryshkov (2024-10-17 09:56:56)
> > From: Kalpak Kawadkar <quic_kkawadka@...cinc.com>
> > 
> > On some platforms branch clock will be enabled before Linux.
> > It is expectated from the clock provider is to poll on the clock
> 
> Unfortunately 'expectated' is not a word. The sentence is also
> grammatically incorrect.
> 
> > to ensure it is indeed enabled and not HW gated, thus add
> > the BRANCH_HALT_POLL flag.
> [...]
> > diff --git a/drivers/clk/qcom/clk-branch.c b/drivers/clk/qcom/clk-branch.c
> > index 229480c5b075a0e70dc05b1cb15b88d29fd475ce..c4c7bd565cc9a3926e24bb12ed6355ec6ddd19fb 100644
> > --- a/drivers/clk/qcom/clk-branch.c
> > +++ b/drivers/clk/qcom/clk-branch.c
> > @@ -76,6 +76,7 @@ static int clk_branch_wait(const struct clk_branch *br, bool enabling,
> >                 udelay(10);
> >         } else if (br->halt_check == BRANCH_HALT_ENABLE ||
> >                    br->halt_check == BRANCH_HALT ||
> > +                  br->halt_check == BRANCH_HALT_POLL ||
> 
> The name is confusing. The halt check is already "polling", i.e. this
> isn't a different type of halt check. This is really something like
> another branch flag that doesn't have to do with the halt checking and
> only to do with skipping writing the enable bit. Maybe we should
> introduce another clk_ops for these types of clks instead.

SGTM. All clocks with this flag use clk_branch2_aon_ops, so it is easy
to switch to a separate clk_ops.

> 
> >                    (enabling && voted)) {
> >                 int count = 200;
> >  
> > @@ -97,6 +98,10 @@ static int clk_branch_toggle(struct clk_hw *hw, bool en,
> >         struct clk_branch *br = to_clk_branch(hw);
> >         int ret;
> >  
> > +       if (br->halt_check == BRANCH_HALT_POLL) {
> 
> Remove braces
> 
> > +               return  clk_branch_wait(br, en, check_halt);
> 
> Remove extra space      ^
> 
> > +       }
> > +

-- 
With best wishes
Dmitry