From: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@codeaurora.org>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v13 4/6] clk: Add rate constraints to clocks
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2015 19:13:38 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <54CA8662.7040008@codeaurora.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAMuHMdUGgA70o2SgdJR3X6AkCcMssHU0POLfzppADT-O=BrYDw@mail.gmail.com>
On 01/29/15 05:31, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> Hi Tomeu, Mike,
>
> On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 12:03 PM, Tomeu Vizoso
> <tomeu.vizoso@collabora.com> wrote:
>> --- a/drivers/clk/clk.c
>> +++ b/drivers/clk/clk.c
>> @@ -2391,25 +2543,24 @@ int __clk_get(struct clk *clk)
>> return 1;
>> }
>>
>> -static void clk_core_put(struct clk_core *core)
>> +void __clk_put(struct clk *clk)
>> {
>> struct module *owner;
>>
>> - owner = core->owner;
>> + if (!clk || WARN_ON_ONCE(IS_ERR(clk)))
>> + return;
>>
>> clk_prepare_lock();
>> - kref_put(&core->ref, __clk_release);
>> +
>> + hlist_del(&clk->child_node);
>> + clk_core_set_rate_nolock(clk->core, clk->core->req_rate);
> At this point, clk->core->req_rate is still zero, causing
> cpg_div6_clock_round_rate() to be called with a zero "rate" parameter,
> e.g. on r8a7791:
Hmm.. I wonder if we should assign core->req_rate to be the same as
core->rate during __clk_init()? That would make this call to
clk_core_set_rate_nolock() a nop in this case.
>
> cpg_div6_clock_round_rate: clock sd2 rate 0 parent_rate 780000000 div 1
> cpg_div6_clock_round_rate: clock sd1 rate 0 parent_rate 780000000 div 1
> cpg_div6_clock_round_rate: clock mmc0 rate 0 parent_rate 780000000 div 1
> cpg_div6_clock_round_rate: clock sd1 rate 0 parent_rate 780000000 div 1
> cpg_div6_clock_round_rate: clock sd1 rate 0 parent_rate 780000000 div 1
> cpg_div6_clock_round_rate: clock sd2 rate 0 parent_rate 780000000 div 1
> cpg_div6_clock_round_rate: clock sd2 rate 0 parent_rate 780000000 div 1
>
> and cpg_div6_clock_calc_div() is called to calculate
>
> div = DIV_ROUND_CLOSEST(parent_rate, rate);
>
> Why was this call to clk_core_set_rate_nolock() in __clk_put() added?
> Before, there was no rate setting done at this point, and
> cpg_div6_clock_round_rate() was not called.
We need to call clk_core_set_rate_nolock() here to drop any min/max rate
request that this consumer has.
>
> Have the semantics changed? Should .round_rate() be ready to
> accept a "zero" rate, and use e.g. the current rate instead?
It seems like we've also exposed a bug in cpg_div6_clock_calc_div().
Technically any driver could have called clk_round_rate() with a zero
rate before this change and that would have caused the same division by
zero.
--
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum,
a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@codeaurora.org>
To: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>,
Tomeu Vizoso <tomeu.vizoso@collabora.com>,
Mike Turquette <mturquette@linaro.org>
Cc: "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"Javier Martinez Canillas" <javier.martinez@collabora.co.uk>,
"Jonathan Corbet" <corbet@lwn.net>,
"Tony Lindgren" <tony@atomide.com>,
"Russell King" <linux@arm.linux.org.uk>,
"Ralf Baechle" <ralf@linux-mips.org>,
"Boris Brezillon" <boris.brezillon@free-electrons.com>,
"Emilio López" <emilio@elopez.com.ar>,
"Maxime Ripard" <maxime.ripard@free-electrons.com>,
"Tero Kristo" <t-kristo@ti.com>,
"Manuel Lauss" <manuel.lauss@gmail.com>,
"Alex Elder" <elder@linaro.org>,
"Matt Porter" <mporter@linaro.org>,
"Haojian Zhuang" <haojian.zhuang@linaro.org>,
"Zhangfei Gao" <zhangfei.gao@linaro.org>,
"Bintian Wang" <bintian.wang@huawei.com>,
"Chao Xie" <chao.xie@marvell.com>,
"linux-doc@vger.kernel.org" <linux-doc@vger.kernel.org>,
"linux-omap@vger.kernel.org" <linux-omap@vger.kernel.org>,
"linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
"Linux MIPS Mailing List" <linux-mips@linux-mips.org>,
"Linux-sh list" <linux-sh@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v13 4/6] clk: Add rate constraints to clocks
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2015 11:13:38 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <54CA8662.7040008@codeaurora.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAMuHMdUGgA70o2SgdJR3X6AkCcMssHU0POLfzppADT-O=BrYDw@mail.gmail.com>
On 01/29/15 05:31, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> Hi Tomeu, Mike,
>
> On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 12:03 PM, Tomeu Vizoso
> <tomeu.vizoso@collabora.com> wrote:
>> --- a/drivers/clk/clk.c
>> +++ b/drivers/clk/clk.c
>> @@ -2391,25 +2543,24 @@ int __clk_get(struct clk *clk)
>> return 1;
>> }
>>
>> -static void clk_core_put(struct clk_core *core)
>> +void __clk_put(struct clk *clk)
>> {
>> struct module *owner;
>>
>> - owner = core->owner;
>> + if (!clk || WARN_ON_ONCE(IS_ERR(clk)))
>> + return;
>>
>> clk_prepare_lock();
>> - kref_put(&core->ref, __clk_release);
>> +
>> + hlist_del(&clk->child_node);
>> + clk_core_set_rate_nolock(clk->core, clk->core->req_rate);
> At this point, clk->core->req_rate is still zero, causing
> cpg_div6_clock_round_rate() to be called with a zero "rate" parameter,
> e.g. on r8a7791:
Hmm.. I wonder if we should assign core->req_rate to be the same as
core->rate during __clk_init()? That would make this call to
clk_core_set_rate_nolock() a nop in this case.
>
> cpg_div6_clock_round_rate: clock sd2 rate 0 parent_rate 780000000 div 1
> cpg_div6_clock_round_rate: clock sd1 rate 0 parent_rate 780000000 div 1
> cpg_div6_clock_round_rate: clock mmc0 rate 0 parent_rate 780000000 div 1
> cpg_div6_clock_round_rate: clock sd1 rate 0 parent_rate 780000000 div 1
> cpg_div6_clock_round_rate: clock sd1 rate 0 parent_rate 780000000 div 1
> cpg_div6_clock_round_rate: clock sd2 rate 0 parent_rate 780000000 div 1
> cpg_div6_clock_round_rate: clock sd2 rate 0 parent_rate 780000000 div 1
>
> and cpg_div6_clock_calc_div() is called to calculate
>
> div = DIV_ROUND_CLOSEST(parent_rate, rate);
>
> Why was this call to clk_core_set_rate_nolock() in __clk_put() added?
> Before, there was no rate setting done at this point, and
> cpg_div6_clock_round_rate() was not called.
We need to call clk_core_set_rate_nolock() here to drop any min/max rate
request that this consumer has.
>
> Have the semantics changed? Should .round_rate() be ready to
> accept a "zero" rate, and use e.g. the current rate instead?
It seems like we've also exposed a bug in cpg_div6_clock_calc_div().
Technically any driver could have called clk_round_rate() with a zero
rate before this change and that would have caused the same division by
zero.
--
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum,
a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@codeaurora.org>
To: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>,
Tomeu Vizoso <tomeu.vizoso@collabora.com>,
Mike Turquette <mturquette@linaro.org>
Cc: "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"Javier Martinez Canillas" <javier.martinez@collabora.co.uk>,
"Jonathan Corbet" <corbet@lwn.net>,
"Tony Lindgren" <tony@atomide.com>,
"Russell King" <linux@arm.linux.org.uk>,
"Ralf Baechle" <ralf@linux-mips.org>,
"Boris Brezillon" <boris.brezillon@free-electrons.com>,
"Emilio López" <emilio@elopez.com.ar>,
"Maxime Ripard" <maxime.ripard@free-electrons.com>,
"Tero Kristo" <t-kristo@ti.com>,
"Manuel Lauss" <manuel.lauss@gmail.com>,
"Alex Elder" <elder@linaro.org>,
"Matt Porter" <mporter@linaro.org>,
"Haojian Zhuang" <haojian.zhuang@linaro.org>,
"Zhangfei Gao" <zhangfei.gao@linaro.org>,
"Bintian Wang" <bintian.wang@huawei.com>,
"Chao Xie" <chao.xie@marvell.com>,
"linux-doc@vger.kernel.org" <linux-doc@vger.kernel.org>,
"linux-omap@vger.kernel.org" <linux-omap@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v13 4/6] clk: Add rate constraints to clocks
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2015 11:13:38 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <54CA8662.7040008@codeaurora.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAMuHMdUGgA70o2SgdJR3X6AkCcMssHU0POLfzppADT-O=BrYDw@mail.gmail.com>
On 01/29/15 05:31, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> Hi Tomeu, Mike,
>
> On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 12:03 PM, Tomeu Vizoso
> <tomeu.vizoso@collabora.com> wrote:
>> --- a/drivers/clk/clk.c
>> +++ b/drivers/clk/clk.c
>> @@ -2391,25 +2543,24 @@ int __clk_get(struct clk *clk)
>> return 1;
>> }
>>
>> -static void clk_core_put(struct clk_core *core)
>> +void __clk_put(struct clk *clk)
>> {
>> struct module *owner;
>>
>> - owner = core->owner;
>> + if (!clk || WARN_ON_ONCE(IS_ERR(clk)))
>> + return;
>>
>> clk_prepare_lock();
>> - kref_put(&core->ref, __clk_release);
>> +
>> + hlist_del(&clk->child_node);
>> + clk_core_set_rate_nolock(clk->core, clk->core->req_rate);
> At this point, clk->core->req_rate is still zero, causing
> cpg_div6_clock_round_rate() to be called with a zero "rate" parameter,
> e.g. on r8a7791:
Hmm.. I wonder if we should assign core->req_rate to be the same as
core->rate during __clk_init()? That would make this call to
clk_core_set_rate_nolock() a nop in this case.
>
> cpg_div6_clock_round_rate: clock sd2 rate 0 parent_rate 780000000 div 1
> cpg_div6_clock_round_rate: clock sd1 rate 0 parent_rate 780000000 div 1
> cpg_div6_clock_round_rate: clock mmc0 rate 0 parent_rate 780000000 div 1
> cpg_div6_clock_round_rate: clock sd1 rate 0 parent_rate 780000000 div 1
> cpg_div6_clock_round_rate: clock sd1 rate 0 parent_rate 780000000 div 1
> cpg_div6_clock_round_rate: clock sd2 rate 0 parent_rate 780000000 div 1
> cpg_div6_clock_round_rate: clock sd2 rate 0 parent_rate 780000000 div 1
>
> and cpg_div6_clock_calc_div() is called to calculate
>
> div = DIV_ROUND_CLOSEST(parent_rate, rate);
>
> Why was this call to clk_core_set_rate_nolock() in __clk_put() added?
> Before, there was no rate setting done at this point, and
> cpg_div6_clock_round_rate() was not called.
We need to call clk_core_set_rate_nolock() here to drop any min/max rate
request that this consumer has.
>
> Have the semantics changed? Should .round_rate() be ready to
> accept a "zero" rate, and use e.g. the current rate instead?
It seems like we've also exposed a bug in cpg_div6_clock_calc_div().
Technically any driver could have called clk_round_rate() with a zero
rate before this change and that would have caused the same division by
zero.
--
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum,
a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: sboyd@codeaurora.org (Stephen Boyd)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH v13 4/6] clk: Add rate constraints to clocks
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2015 11:13:38 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <54CA8662.7040008@codeaurora.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAMuHMdUGgA70o2SgdJR3X6AkCcMssHU0POLfzppADT-O=BrYDw@mail.gmail.com>
On 01/29/15 05:31, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> Hi Tomeu, Mike,
>
> On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 12:03 PM, Tomeu Vizoso
> <tomeu.vizoso@collabora.com> wrote:
>> --- a/drivers/clk/clk.c
>> +++ b/drivers/clk/clk.c
>> @@ -2391,25 +2543,24 @@ int __clk_get(struct clk *clk)
>> return 1;
>> }
>>
>> -static void clk_core_put(struct clk_core *core)
>> +void __clk_put(struct clk *clk)
>> {
>> struct module *owner;
>>
>> - owner = core->owner;
>> + if (!clk || WARN_ON_ONCE(IS_ERR(clk)))
>> + return;
>>
>> clk_prepare_lock();
>> - kref_put(&core->ref, __clk_release);
>> +
>> + hlist_del(&clk->child_node);
>> + clk_core_set_rate_nolock(clk->core, clk->core->req_rate);
> At this point, clk->core->req_rate is still zero, causing
> cpg_div6_clock_round_rate() to be called with a zero "rate" parameter,
> e.g. on r8a7791:
Hmm.. I wonder if we should assign core->req_rate to be the same as
core->rate during __clk_init()? That would make this call to
clk_core_set_rate_nolock() a nop in this case.
>
> cpg_div6_clock_round_rate: clock sd2 rate 0 parent_rate 780000000 div 1
> cpg_div6_clock_round_rate: clock sd1 rate 0 parent_rate 780000000 div 1
> cpg_div6_clock_round_rate: clock mmc0 rate 0 parent_rate 780000000 div 1
> cpg_div6_clock_round_rate: clock sd1 rate 0 parent_rate 780000000 div 1
> cpg_div6_clock_round_rate: clock sd1 rate 0 parent_rate 780000000 div 1
> cpg_div6_clock_round_rate: clock sd2 rate 0 parent_rate 780000000 div 1
> cpg_div6_clock_round_rate: clock sd2 rate 0 parent_rate 780000000 div 1
>
> and cpg_div6_clock_calc_div() is called to calculate
>
> div = DIV_ROUND_CLOSEST(parent_rate, rate);
>
> Why was this call to clk_core_set_rate_nolock() in __clk_put() added?
> Before, there was no rate setting done at this point, and
> cpg_div6_clock_round_rate() was not called.
We need to call clk_core_set_rate_nolock() here to drop any min/max rate
request that this consumer has.
>
> Have the semantics changed? Should .round_rate() be ready to
> accept a "zero" rate, and use e.g. the current rate instead?
It seems like we've also exposed a bug in cpg_div6_clock_calc_div().
Technically any driver could have called clk_round_rate() with a zero
rate before this change and that would have caused the same division by
zero.
--
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum,
a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-01-29 19:13 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 186+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-01-23 11:03 [PATCH v13 0/6] Per-user clock constraints Tomeu Vizoso
2015-01-23 11:03 ` [PATCH v13 1/6] clk: Remove unneeded NULL checks Tomeu Vizoso
2015-01-23 11:03 ` [PATCH v13 2/6] clk: Remove __clk_register Tomeu Vizoso
2015-01-23 11:03 ` [PATCH v13 3/6] clk: Make clk API return per-user struct clk instances Tomeu Vizoso
2015-01-23 11:03 ` Tomeu Vizoso
2015-02-01 21:24 ` Mike Turquette
2015-02-01 21:24 ` Mike Turquette
2015-02-01 21:24 ` Mike Turquette
2015-02-02 17:04 ` Tony Lindgren
2015-02-02 17:04 ` Tony Lindgren
2015-02-02 17:32 ` Mike Turquette
2015-02-02 17:32 ` Mike Turquette
2015-02-02 19:32 ` Tero Kristo
2015-02-02 19:32 ` Tero Kristo
2015-02-02 19:32 ` Tero Kristo
2015-02-02 20:44 ` Tony Lindgren
2015-02-02 20:44 ` Tony Lindgren
2015-02-02 22:48 ` Mike Turquette
2015-02-02 22:48 ` Mike Turquette
2015-02-02 23:11 ` Tony Lindgren
2015-02-02 23:11 ` Tony Lindgren
2015-02-02 22:41 ` Mike Turquette
2015-02-02 22:41 ` Mike Turquette
2015-02-02 22:52 ` Stephen Boyd
2015-02-02 22:52 ` Stephen Boyd
2015-02-03 7:03 ` Tomeu Vizoso
2015-02-03 7:03 ` Tomeu Vizoso
2015-02-03 8:46 ` Tero Kristo
2015-02-03 8:46 ` Tero Kristo
2015-02-03 8:46 ` Tero Kristo
2015-02-03 15:22 ` Tony Lindgren
2015-02-03 15:22 ` Tony Lindgren
2015-02-02 20:45 ` Stephen Boyd
2015-02-02 20:45 ` Stephen Boyd
2015-02-02 20:45 ` [Cocci] " Stephen Boyd
2015-02-02 21:31 ` Julia Lawall
2015-02-02 21:31 ` Julia Lawall
2015-02-02 21:31 ` [Cocci] " Julia Lawall
2015-02-02 22:35 ` Stephen Boyd
2015-02-02 22:35 ` Stephen Boyd
2015-02-02 22:35 ` [Cocci] " Stephen Boyd
2015-02-02 22:50 ` Mike Turquette
2015-02-02 22:50 ` Mike Turquette
2015-02-02 22:50 ` [Cocci] " Mike Turquette
2015-02-03 16:04 ` Quentin Lambert
2015-02-03 16:04 ` Quentin Lambert
2015-02-03 16:04 ` Quentin Lambert
2015-02-04 23:26 ` Stephen Boyd
2015-02-04 23:26 ` Stephen Boyd
2015-02-04 23:26 ` Stephen Boyd
2015-02-05 15:45 ` Quentin Lambert
2015-02-05 15:45 ` Quentin Lambert
2015-02-05 15:45 ` Quentin Lambert
2015-02-05 16:02 ` Quentin Lambert
2015-02-05 16:02 ` Quentin Lambert
2015-02-05 16:02 ` Quentin Lambert
2015-02-06 1:49 ` Stephen Boyd
2015-02-06 1:49 ` Stephen Boyd
2015-02-06 1:49 ` Stephen Boyd
2015-02-06 2:15 ` Stephen Boyd
2015-02-06 2:15 ` Stephen Boyd
2015-02-06 2:15 ` Stephen Boyd
2015-02-06 9:01 ` Quentin Lambert
2015-02-06 9:01 ` Quentin Lambert
2015-02-06 9:01 ` Quentin Lambert
2015-02-06 9:12 ` Julia Lawall
2015-02-06 9:12 ` Julia Lawall
2015-02-06 9:12 ` Julia Lawall
2015-02-06 17:15 ` Stephen Boyd
2015-02-06 17:15 ` Stephen Boyd
2015-02-06 17:15 ` Stephen Boyd
2015-02-17 22:01 ` Stephen Boyd
2015-02-17 22:01 ` Stephen Boyd
2015-02-17 22:01 ` Stephen Boyd
2015-03-12 17:20 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2015-03-12 17:20 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2015-03-12 17:20 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2015-03-12 19:43 ` Stephen Boyd
2015-03-12 19:43 ` Stephen Boyd
2015-03-12 19:43 ` Stephen Boyd
2015-03-13 3:29 ` Shawn Guo
2015-03-13 3:29 ` Shawn Guo
2015-03-13 3:29 ` Shawn Guo
2015-03-13 8:20 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2015-03-13 8:20 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2015-03-13 8:20 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2015-03-13 13:42 ` Shawn Guo
2015-03-13 13:42 ` Shawn Guo
2015-03-13 13:42 ` Shawn Guo
2015-03-13 17:42 ` Stephen Boyd
2015-03-13 17:42 ` Stephen Boyd
2015-03-13 17:42 ` Stephen Boyd
2015-02-05 19:44 ` Sylwester Nawrocki
2015-02-05 19:44 ` Sylwester Nawrocki
2015-02-05 20:06 ` Sylwester Nawrocki
2015-02-05 20:06 ` Sylwester Nawrocki
2015-02-05 20:07 ` Stephen Boyd
2015-02-05 20:07 ` Stephen Boyd
2015-02-05 22:14 ` Stephen Boyd
2015-02-05 22:14 ` Stephen Boyd
2015-02-06 0:42 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2015-02-06 0:42 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2015-02-06 1:35 ` Stephen Boyd
2015-02-06 1:35 ` Stephen Boyd
2015-02-06 13:39 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2015-02-06 13:39 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2015-02-06 19:30 ` Stephen Boyd
2015-02-06 19:30 ` Stephen Boyd
2015-02-06 19:37 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2015-02-06 19:37 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2015-02-06 19:41 ` Stephen Boyd
2015-02-06 19:41 ` Stephen Boyd
2015-02-19 21:32 ` Mike Turquette
2015-02-19 21:32 ` Mike Turquette
2015-02-24 14:08 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2015-02-24 14:08 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2015-02-25 2:18 ` Mike Turquette
2015-02-25 2:18 ` Mike Turquette
2015-01-23 11:03 ` [PATCH v13 4/6] clk: Add rate constraints to clocks Tomeu Vizoso
2015-01-23 11:03 ` Tomeu Vizoso
2015-01-23 11:03 ` Tomeu Vizoso
2015-01-29 13:31 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2015-01-29 13:31 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2015-01-29 13:31 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2015-01-29 13:31 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2015-01-29 19:13 ` Stephen Boyd [this message]
2015-01-29 19:13 ` Stephen Boyd
2015-01-29 19:13 ` Stephen Boyd
2015-01-29 19:13 ` Stephen Boyd
2015-01-31 1:31 ` Stephen Boyd
2015-01-31 1:31 ` Stephen Boyd
2015-01-31 1:31 ` Stephen Boyd
2015-01-31 1:31 ` Stephen Boyd
2015-01-31 1:31 ` Stephen Boyd
2015-01-31 18:36 ` Tomeu Vizoso
2015-01-31 18:36 ` Tomeu Vizoso
2015-01-31 18:36 ` Tomeu Vizoso
2015-01-31 18:36 ` Tomeu Vizoso
2015-01-31 18:36 ` Tomeu Vizoso
2015-02-01 22:18 ` Mike Turquette
2015-02-01 22:18 ` Mike Turquette
2015-02-01 22:18 ` Mike Turquette
2015-02-01 22:18 ` Mike Turquette
2015-02-01 22:18 ` Mike Turquette
2015-02-02 7:59 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2015-02-02 7:59 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2015-02-02 7:59 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2015-02-02 7:59 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2015-02-02 7:59 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2015-02-02 16:12 ` Tony Lindgren
2015-02-02 16:12 ` Tony Lindgren
2015-02-02 16:12 ` Tony Lindgren
2015-02-02 16:12 ` Tony Lindgren
2015-02-02 16:12 ` Tony Lindgren
2015-02-02 17:46 ` Mike Turquette
2015-02-02 17:46 ` Mike Turquette
2015-02-02 17:46 ` Mike Turquette
2015-02-02 17:46 ` Mike Turquette
2015-02-02 17:46 ` Mike Turquette
2015-02-02 17:49 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2015-02-02 17:49 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2015-02-02 17:49 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2015-02-02 17:49 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2015-02-02 17:49 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2015-02-02 19:21 ` Tony Lindgren
2015-02-02 19:21 ` Tony Lindgren
2015-02-02 19:21 ` Tony Lindgren
2015-02-02 19:21 ` Tony Lindgren
2015-02-02 19:21 ` Tony Lindgren
2015-02-02 20:47 ` Tony Lindgren
2015-02-02 20:47 ` Tony Lindgren
2015-02-02 20:47 ` Tony Lindgren
2015-02-02 20:47 ` Tony Lindgren
2015-02-02 20:47 ` Tony Lindgren
2015-01-23 11:03 ` [PATCH v13 5/6] clkdev: Export clk_register_clkdev Tomeu Vizoso
2015-01-23 11:03 ` Tomeu Vizoso
2015-02-03 17:35 ` Andy Shevchenko
2015-02-03 17:35 ` Andy Shevchenko
2015-02-03 17:43 ` Andy Shevchenko
2015-02-03 17:43 ` Andy Shevchenko
2015-01-23 11:03 ` [PATCH v13 6/6] clk: Add module for unit tests Tomeu Vizoso
2015-01-27 0:55 ` [PATCH v13 0/6] Per-user clock constraints Stephen Boyd
2015-01-27 6:29 ` Tomeu Vizoso
2015-01-28 6:59 ` Tomeu Vizoso
[not found] ` <20150129022633.22722.78592@quantum>
2015-01-29 6:41 ` Tomeu Vizoso
2015-01-29 14:29 ` Mike Turquette
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=54CA8662.7040008@codeaurora.org \
--to=sboyd@codeaurora.org \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.