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

Message-ID: <20251119162854.6890-1-rakuram.e96@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2025 21:58:49 +0530
From: Rakuram Eswaran <rakuram.e96@...il.com>
To: u.kleine-koenig@...libre.com
Cc: 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,
	rakuram.e96@...il.com,
	skhan@...uxfoundation.org,
	ulf.hansson@...aro.org,
	zhoubinbin@...ngson.cn
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] mmc: pxamci: Simplify pxamci_probe() error handling using devm APIs

On Tue, 18 Nov 2025 at 21:44, Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@...libre.com> wrote:
>
> 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.
>

Ok, Uwe. Previous patch is already made it to linux-next branch. I will send the
patch for this on top of next. 

I will make sure to run this command `git format-patch --base` before sending.

> > 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.
>

On this one, I'll look into other implementation on how they handled it in
sometime. 

Best Regards,
Rakuram