linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3] mmc: pxamci: Simplify pxamci_probe() error handling using devm APIs

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <gp4ju4m3ypaijxnll4e5246e6qu2zk7towstua3exfazdvqj5n@5zorhuwucugk>
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2025 17:14:40 +0100
From: Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@...libre.com>
To: Rakuram Eswaran <rakuram.e96@...il.com>
Cc: ulf.hansson@...aro.org, chenhuacai@...nel.org, 
	dan.carpenter@...aro.org, david.hunter.linux@...il.com, khalid@...nel.org, 
	linux-kernel-mentees@...ts.linux.dev, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mmc@...r.kernel.org, 
	lkp@...el.com, skhan@...uxfoundation.org, zhoubinbin@...ngson.cn
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] mmc: pxamci: Simplify pxamci_probe() error handling
 using devm APIs

Hello Rakuram,

On Tue, Nov 18, 2025 at 07:53:11PM +0530, Rakuram Eswaran wrote:
> Shall I start to send the patch to remove the redundant if condition
> check from pxamic_remove() function?
> [...]
> I can pull Uffe fixes branch to send the above patch? Any inputs will be
> really helpful to start working on this.

It's sensible to build on top of your previous patch, yes. If you do
that by using next as development tree once Ulf's commit made it into
there, or if you apply it yourself (and then use `git format-patch
--base` correctly) doesn't matter much.

> Another point, I would like to ask is about the below discussion. You have
> mentioned about WIP suggestion for clk_get_rate(). 
> 
> Link to that discussion:
> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mmc/20251020183209.11040-1-rakuram.e96@gmail.com/
> 
> Was my understanding is correct?

I think so. In my understanding clk_get_rate() must only called for an
enabled clock. (Though the wording in include/linux/clk.h is a bit
ambigous. It says: "[the returned clock rate] is only valid once the
clock source has been enabled." That can mean "The return value doesn't
mean anything when called for a disabled clock." or "The returned rate
is the real one once the clock is enabled." Some time ago I tried to
improve the wording, but IIRC I didn't get relevant feedback on my
patch. Assuming the former semantic is safe for sure.

Best regards
Uwe

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (489 bytes)