netdev - Re: [RFC PATCH v1 0/3] Create common DPLL/clock configuration API

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]

Date:   Fri, 24 Jun 2022 10:55:22 -0700
From:   Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To:     Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>
Cc:     Vadim Fedorenko <vfedorenko@...ek.ru>,
        Vadim Fedorenko <vadfed@...com>, Aya Levin <ayal@...dia.com>,
        Arkadiusz Kubalewski <arkadiusz.kubalewski@...el.com>,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-clk@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v1 0/3] Create common DPLL/clock configuration API

On Fri, 24 Jun 2022 10:20:44 -0700 Florian Fainelli wrote:
> On 6/22/22 17:57, Vadim Fedorenko wrote:
> > Implement common API for clock/DPLL configuration and status reporting.
> > The API utilises netlink interface as transport for commands and event
> > notifications. This API aim to extend current pin configuration and
> > make it flexible and easy to cover special configurations.  
> 
> Any reasons why you are not copying the Linux common clock framework 
> maintainers and not seeking to get your code included under drivers/clk/ 
> where it would seem like a more natural place for it?
> 
> Is netlink really a necessary configuration interface for those devices?

Sorry, likely my fault. Vadim asked me who to CC and I suggested to just
hit linux-arm-kernel assuming it's the best place for chance encounters
with embedded folks. An assumption based on no real data or experience.

Regarding the clock framework I think I brought that suggestion up in
the mega thread when Maciej M proposed the SyncE support and putting
all the PLL info directly in rtnetlink. There wasn't much support,
and perhaps that's fair, clock generation vs runtime DPLL config for
time source purposes are different use cases.

With that longish excuse out of the way, CCing linux-clk now, here's
the lore link to the thread:

https://lore.kernel.org/r/20220623005717.31040-2-vfedorenko@novek.ru/