linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 4/5] firmware: exynos-acpm: register ACPM clocks pdev

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: <33e80e92-d68f-4919-b535-e76836fbabd1@linaro.org>
Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2025 08:46:42 +0100
From: Tudor Ambarus <tudor.ambarus@...aro.org>
To: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>, Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
 Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>, Conor Dooley
 <conor+dt@...nel.org>, Peter Griffin <peter.griffin@...aro.org>,
 André Draszik <andre.draszik@...aro.org>,
 Michael Turquette <mturquette@...libre.com>, Stephen Boyd
 <sboyd@...nel.org>, Alim Akhtar <alim.akhtar@...sung.com>,
 Sylwester Nawrocki <s.nawrocki@...sung.com>,
 Chanwoo Choi <cw00.choi@...sung.com>,
 Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-samsung-soc@...r.kernel.org,
 devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
 linux-clk@...r.kernel.org, willmcvicker@...gle.com, kernel-team@...roid.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 4/5] firmware: exynos-acpm: register ACPM clocks pdev



On 9/6/25 1:20 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 03/09/2025 15:56, Tudor Ambarus wrote:
>> Register by hand a platform device for the ACPM clocks.
>> The ACPM clocks are not modeled as a DT child of ACPM because:
>> 1/ they don't have their own resources.
>> 2/ they are not a block that can be reused. The clock identifying
>>    data is reduced (clock ID, clock name and mailbox channel ID)
>>    and may differ from a SoC to another.
> 
> If I understand patchset correctly (and your cover letter supports
> that), this does not depend on patch #3, so please move it before that
> one, so both firmware patches are one after another.

You're correct.

#3 depends on #2 and I thought you wanted the minimum dependencies listed
somehow, so that the clock subsystem doesn't pull extra patches (that would
be #4). I will move #4 in between current #2 and #3.

Thanks!