linux-kernel - Re: Re: [linux-sunxi] [PATCH 0/8] clocksource: sunxi: Timer fixes and cleanup

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1306281559490.4013@ionos.tec.linutronix.de>
Date:	Fri, 28 Jun 2013 16:02:23 +0200 (CEST)
From:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:	张猛 <kevin@...winnertech.com>
cc:	Siarhei Siamashka <siarhei.siamashka@...il.com>,
	"linux-sunxi@...glegroups.com" <linux-sunxi@...glegroups.com>,
	"maxime.ripard" <maxime.ripard@...e-electrons.com>,
	Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com>,
	John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Emilio Lopez <emilio@...pez.com.ar>,
	孙彦邦 <sunny@...winnertech.com>,
	吴书耕 <shuge@...winnertech.com>
Subject: Re: Re: [linux-sunxi] [PATCH 0/8] clocksource: sunxi: Timer fixes
 and cleanup

On Fri, 28 Jun 2013, 张猛 wrote:
> > The A10 manual from http://free-electrons.com/~maxime/pub/datasheet/
> > does not seem to contain any details about what bad things may happen
> > if we try to read CNT64_LO_REG while latching is still in progress and
> > CNT64_RL_EN bit in CNT64_CTRL_REG has not changed to zero yet.
> > I can imagine the following possible scenarios:
> >  1. We read either the old stale CNT64_LO_REG value or the new
> >     correct value.
> >  2. We read either the old stale CNT64_LO_REG value or the new
> >     correct value, or some random garbage.
> >  3. The processor may deadlock, eat your dog, or do some other
> >     nasty thing.
> >
> > In the case of 1, we probably can get away without using any spinlocks?
> 
> About the 64bits counter, the latch bit is needed because of the asynchronous circuit.
> The internal circuit of 64bits counter is working under 24Mhz clock, and CNT_LO/HI
> is read with APB clock. So the clock synchronize is needed. The function of the latch
> is synchronous the 64bits counter from 24Mhz clock domain to APB clock domain.
> So, if the latch is not completely, value of the CNT_LO/HI maybe a random value, because
> some bits are latched, but others are not. So, the CNT_LO/HI should be read after
> latch is completely.
> The latch just takes 3 cycles of 24Mhz clock, the time is nearly 0.125 micro-second.
> 

I really wonder why we're trying to use that timer. AFAICT the A10 has
another six 32bit timers which do not have this restriction and the
clocksoure/sched_clock implementation works nicely with 32 bits. So
what's the point of using that 64 bit counter if it's horrible to
access?

Thanks,

	tglx