linux-kernel - Re: [PATCHv2 4/8] clocksource: sun4i: Fix the next event code

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:	Fri, 28 Jun 2013 23:27:25 +0200 (CEST)
From:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:	Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@...e-electrons.com>
cc:	John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Emilio Lopez <emilio@...pez.com.ar>, kevin@...winnertech.com,
	sunny@...winnertech.com, shuge@...winnertech.com,
	linux-sunxi@...glegroups.com
Subject: Re: [PATCHv2 4/8] clocksource: sun4i: Fix the next event code

On Fri, 28 Jun 2013, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 10:13:08PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > On Fri, 28 Jun 2013, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> > > @@ -61,9 +62,14 @@ static void sun4i_clkevt_mode(enum clock_event_mode mode,
> > >  static int sun4i_clkevt_next_event(unsigned long evt,
> > >  				   struct clock_event_device *unused)
> > >  {
> > > -	u32 u = readl(timer_base + TIMER_CTL_REG(0));
> > > -	writel(evt, timer_base + TIMER_CNTVAL_REG(0));
> > > -	writel(u | TIMER_CTL_ENABLE | TIMER_CTL_AUTORELOAD,
> > > +	u32 val = readl(timer_base + TIMER_CTL_REG(0));
> > > +	writel(val & ~TIMER_CTL_ENABLE, timer_base + TIMER_CTL_REG(0));
> > > +	udelay(1);
> > 
> > That udelay() is more than suspicious. Is there really no other way to
> > deal with that hardware?
> > 
> > If no, you really need to put a proper explanation for that into the code.
> 
> The datasheet states that you have to wait for two ticks of the timer
> clock source (in that case, 24MHz, which makes it around 80-85ns) before
> you can actually enable it back.
> 
> I didn't came up with a better solution.

80-85ns is definitely way less than 1us.

Why not reading the counter register and wait for 2 or 3 cycles to
elapse instead of wasting a full microsecond evertime ?

Thanks,

	tglx
--
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/