netdev - Re: [RFC PATCH v4 0/4] 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]

Message-ID: <20230110120549.4d764609@kernel.org>
Date:   Tue, 10 Jan 2023 12:05:49 -0800
From:   Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To:     "Kubalewski, Arkadiusz" <arkadiusz.kubalewski@...el.com>
Cc:     Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>,
        Maciek Machnikowski <maciek@...hnikowski.net>,
        'Vadim Fedorenko' <vfedorenko@...ek.ru>,
        'Jonathan Lemon' <jonathan.lemon@...il.com>,
        "'Paolo Abeni'" <pabeni@...hat.com>,
        "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
        <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        "linux-clk@...r.kernel.org" <linux-clk@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v4 0/4] Create common DPLL/clock configuration API

On Mon, 9 Jan 2023 14:43:01 +0000 Kubalewski, Arkadiusz wrote:
> This is a simplified network switch board example.
> It has 2 synchronization channels, where each channel:
> - provides clk to 8 PHYs driven by separated MAC chips,
> - controls 2 DPLLs.
> 
> Basically only given FW has control over its PHYs, so also a control over it's
> MUX inputs.
> All external sources are shared between the channels.
> 
> This is why we believe it is not best idea to enclose multiple DPLLs with one
> object:
> - sources are shared even if DPLLs are not a single synchronizer chip,
> - control over specific MUX type input shall be controllable from different
> driver/firmware instances.
> 
> As we know the proposal of having multiple DPLLs in one object was a try to
> simplify currently implemented shared pins. We fully support idea of having
> interfaces as simple as possible, but at the same time they shall be flexible
> enough to serve many use cases.

I must be missing context from other discussions but what is this
proposal trying to solve? Well implemented shared pins is all we need.