linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] arm/tegra: add timeout to PCIe PLL lock detection loop

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:	Mon, 12 Mar 2012 12:09:43 -0600
From:	Stephen Warren <swarren@...dotorg.org>
To:	Dmitry Artamonow <mad_soft@...ox.ru>,
	Olof Johansson <olof@...om.net>
CC:	linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org, Andi <andi.shyti@...il.com>,
	Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...onic-design.de>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Colin Cross <ccross@...roid.com>,
	Mike Rapoport <mike@...pulab.co.il>,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] arm/tegra: add timeout to PCIe PLL lock detection
 loop

On 03/09/2012 03:09 AM, Dmitry Artamonow wrote:
> Tegra PCIe driver waits for PLL to lock using busy loop.
> If PLL fails to lock for some reason, this leads to silent lockup
> while booting (PCIe code is not modular).
> 
> Fix by adding timeout, so if PLL doesn't lock in a couple
> of seconds, just PCIe driver fails and machine continues to boot.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Dmitry Artamonow <mad_soft@...ox.ru>

> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-tegra/pcie.c b/arch/arm/mach-tegra/pcie.c

>  	/* Wait for the PLL to lock */
> +	timeout = 2000;
>  	do {
>  		val = pads_readl(PADS_PLL_CTL);
> +		usleep_range(1000, 1000);
> +		if (--timeout == 0) {
> +			pr_err("Tegra PCIe error: timeout waiting for PLL\n");
> +			return -EBUSY;
> +		}
>  	} while (!(val & PADS_PLL_CTL_LOCKDET));

Thierry pointed out that one of NVIDIA's downstream kernels uses a
timeout of 300 here, rather than 2000 above. Do you see a specific need
for this timeout for be 2000 rather than 300? It might be nice to be
consistent.

Olof, I notice you've already applied V1 of this, which has the return
statement issue. Can you replace it with this, or should Dmitry send an
incremental patch?
--
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/