linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2a/5 v2] ARM: OMAP1: select clock rate by CPU type

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: <201112011954.18258.jkrzyszt@tis.icnet.pl>
Date:	Thu, 1 Dec 2011 19:54:18 +0100
From:	Janusz Krzysztofik <jkrzyszt@....icnet.pl>
To:	Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>
Cc:	Paul Walmsley <paul@...an.com>, linux-omap@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2a/5 v2] ARM: OMAP1: select clock rate by CPU type

On Thursday 01 of December 2011 at 19:22:54, Tony Lindgren wrote:
> * Janusz Krzysztofik <jkrzyszt@....icnet.pl> [111201 01:35]:
> > On Wednesday 30 of November 2011 at 23:28:38, Tony Lindgren wrote:
> > > 
> > > We should also now be able to remove all the CONFIG_OMAP_ARM_XXXMHZ options
> > > too, right?
> > 
> > Right, but then, perhaps the initial version of patch 2a/5, which 
> > already started removing them, from omap1_defconfig for now, then going 
> > into the right direction while unblocking another regression fix (3/5), 
> > _is_ a good candidate for an rc fix?
> 
> But we did not allow dpll1 reprogramming earlier either,

Wrong. Without OMAP_CLOCKS_SET_BY_BOOTLOADER selected, we always did, 
but only once, early at boot, before ck_dpll1_p->rate was set first from 
omap1_clk_init(), and never retried later, that's why that check which I 
removed with 3/5 was never in the game until e9b7086b80c4d9e354f4edc9e280ae85a60df408.

> so we should
> not need to make all these changes during the -rc cycle. I'm suspecting
> that we've had this same behaviour for a really long time, and we just
> have not seen it as omap1_defconfig had OMAP_CLOCKS_SET_BY_BOOTLOADER
> option set.
> 
> So I'm baffled how your board would be booting at a different rate
> compared to v3.1, it seems that the logic has not changed there. Or
> else we have some simple bug somewhere.
> 
> Care to try to verify at what point your system started booting at
> 60MHz rate?

Since e9b7086b80c4d9e354f4edc9e280ae85a60df408, I guess, and it's hard 
to confirm wituout bisecting the issue with too early sram call, back 
until things still worked like before map_io related changes. I will do 
that if you decide we should try to revert.

Thanks,
Janusz
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/