linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH] ARM: OMAP4: ID: Improve features detection and check

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:	Thu, 1 Nov 2012 22:05:43 +0530
From:	Santosh Shilimkar <santosh.shilimkar@...com>
To:	"ivan.khoronzhuk" <ivan.khoronzhuk@...com>,
	Nishanth Menon <nm@...com>
CC:	<linux-omap@...r.kernel.org>, Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>,
	Russell King <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] ARM: OMAP4: ID: Improve features detection and check

On Thursday 01 November 2012 09:50 PM, ivan.khoronzhuk wrote:
> On 11/01/2012 01:35 PM, Santosh Shilimkar wrote:
>> On Thursday 01 November 2012 03:53 PM, Ivan Khoronzhuk wrote:
>>> Replaces several flags bearing the same meaning. There is no need
>>> to set flags due to different omap types here, it can be checked
>>> in appropriate places as well.
>>>
>>> Cc: Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>
>>> Cc: Russell King <linux@....linux.org.uk>
>>> Cc: linux-omap@...r.kernel.org
>>> Cc: linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
>>> Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
>>> Signed-off-by: Ivan Khoronzhuk <ivan.khoronzhuk@...com>
>>> ---
>>>   arch/arm/mach-omap2/id.c  |   25 +++++++------------------
>>>   arch/arm/mach-omap2/soc.h |    8 ++------
>>>   2 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 24 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/id.c b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/id.c
>>> index cf2362c..3c47a19 100644
>>> --- a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/id.c
>>> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/id.c
>>> @@ -28,6 +28,9 @@
>>>   #include "soc.h"
>>>   #include "control.h"
>>>
>>> +#define OMAP4_SILICON_TYPE_STANDARD        0x01
>>> +#define OMAP4_SILICON_TYPE_PERFORMANCE        0x02
>>> +
>>>   static unsigned int omap_revision;
>>>   static const char *cpu_rev;
>>>   u32 omap_features;
>>> @@ -273,25 +276,11 @@ void __init omap4xxx_check_features(void)
>>>   {
>>>       u32 si_type;
>>>
>>> -    if (cpu_is_omap443x())
>>> -        omap_features |= OMAP4_HAS_MPU_1GHZ;
>>> -
>>> +    si_type =
>>> +    (read_tap_reg(OMAP4_CTRL_MODULE_CORE_STD_FUSE_PROD_ID_1) >> 16)
>>> & 0x03;
>>>
>>> -    if (cpu_is_omap446x()) {
>>> -        si_type =
>>> - read_tap_reg(OMAP4_CTRL_MODULE_CORE_STD_FUSE_PROD_ID_1);
>>> -        switch ((si_type & (3 << 16)) >> 16) {
>>> -        case 2:
>>> -            /* High performance device */
>>> -            omap_features |= OMAP4_HAS_MPU_1_5GHZ;
>>> -            break;
>>> -        case 1:
>>> -        default:
>>> -            /* Standard device */
>>> -            omap_features |= OMAP4_HAS_MPU_1_2GHZ;
>>> -            break;
>>> -        }
>>> -    }
>>> +    if (si_type == OMAP4_SILICON_TYPE_PERFORMANCE)
>>> +        omap_features = OMAP4_HAS_PERF_SILICON;
>>
>> Well the detection isn't for performance/standard but there are some
>> features depend on it. For example 1 GHz doesn't DPLL DCC enable feature
>> where as 1.2 GHz, 1.5 GHz doesn't need. This is the main reason this
>> information is also effused. Have you considered this aspect while
>> creating this patch ?
>>
>> Regards
>> Santosh
>>
>
> I had considered it. There is no dependency on the features.
> DCC usage depends on asked frequency on the fly, not from the features.
> Depending on "performance/standard" feature the available frequencies
> should be chosen in places where they are needed, for example while
> initializing OPPs.
>
You are correct about the way DCC is handled in the clock code. Infact
all these features like L2CACHE, SGX, IVA etc is more for to display
boot messages.

> Currently we have several features while it is only one indeed.
>
1GHz, 1.2GHz, 1.5 GHz are not same since the silicon capability itself
is different.

git blame tells me that Nishant has sent this update so looping him
if above differentiation in boot log helps.

Nishant,
What's your take on removing above freq prints and marking
those silicon as performance silicons as the $subject patch does ?

Regards
Santosh






--
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/