linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 5/5] clk: samsung: introduce exynos8890 clock driver

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: <20250915113055.GA14420@nxa18884-linux.ap.freescale.net>
Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2025 19:30:55 +0800
From: Peng Fan <peng.fan@....nxp.com>
To: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>
Cc: Ivaylo Ivanov <ivo.ivanov.ivanov1@...il.com>,
	Sylwester Nawrocki <s.nawrocki@...sung.com>,
	Chanwoo Choi <cw00.choi@...sung.com>,
	Alim Akhtar <alim.akhtar@...sung.com>,
	Michael Turquette <mturquette@...libre.com>,
	Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>, Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
	Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>,
	linux-samsung-soc@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-clk@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 5/5] clk: samsung: introduce exynos8890 clock driver

On Mon, Sep 15, 2025 at 09:16:40AM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>On 15/09/2025 09:49, Peng Fan wrote:
>> [...]
>>> +static void __init exynos8890_cmu_top_init(struct device_node *np)
>>> +{
>>> +	exynos8890_init_clocks(np, &top_cmu_info);
>>> +	samsung_cmu_register_one(np, &top_cmu_info);
>>> +}
>>> +
>>> +/* Register CMU_TOP early, as it's a dependency for other early domains */
>>> +CLK_OF_DECLARE(exynos8890_cmu_top, "samsung,exynos8890-cmu-top",
>>> +	       exynos8890_cmu_top_init);
>> 
>> Not sure you need to run Android GKI, without module built, this platform
>> will not able to support GKI.
>
>Why would anyone worry about GKI? We develop mainline kernel, not
>Android kernel.

I understand this. But someone will have to update this to support module
built whether mainline or downstream tree, unless GKI is not in the plan.

>
>This seems to be aligned with existing approach, no? What is different here?

No objection from me. I just think supporting module built is a better method.

Regards,
Peng

>
>Best regards,
>Krzysztof
>