| 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
| ||
|
Message-id: <54C972DB.1020808@samsung.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2015 08:38:03 +0900
From: Chanwoo Choi <cw00.choi@...sung.com>
To: Sylwester Nawrocki <s.nawrocki@...sung.com>
Cc: cw00.choi@...sung.com, Chanwoo Choi <cwchoi00@...il.com>,
Tomasz Figa <tomasz.figa@...il.com>,
Mike Turquette <mturquette@...aro.org>,
Kukjin Kim <kgene@...nel.org>,
"pankaj.dubey@...sung.com" <pankaj.dubey@...sung.com>,
"inki.dae@...sung.com" <inki.dae@...sung.com>,
"chanho61.park@...sung.com" <chanho61.park@...sung.com>,
Seung-Woo Kim <sw0312.kim@...sung.com>,
linux-samsung-soc <linux-samsung-soc@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 01/12] clk: samsung: exynos5433: Add clocks using common
clock framework
Hi Sylwester,
Do you have any comment about Tomasz and me reply?
Thanks,
Chanwoo Choi
On 01/24/2015 07:05 AM, Chanwoo Choi wrote:
> Hi Sylwester,
>
> On Sat, Jan 24, 2015 at 2:40 AM, Sylwester Nawrocki
> <s.nawrocki@...sung.com> wrote:
>> On 23/01/15 08:44, Chanwoo Choi wrote:
>>>>> + cmu_top: clock-controller@...0030000 {
>>>>>>> + compatible = "samsung,exynos5433-cmu-top";
>>>>>>> + reg = <0x10030000 0x0c04>;
>>>>>>> + #clock-cells = <1>;
>>>>>>> + };
>>>>>>> +
>>
>>>>>>> + cmu_fsys: clock-controller@...56e0000 {
>>>>>>> + compatible = "samsung,exynos5433-cmu-fsys";
>>>>>>> + reg = <0x156e0000 0x0b04>;
>>>>>>> + #clock-cells = <1>;
>>>>>>> + };
>>>>>
>>>>> What are the reasons to split the whole clock controller into separate
>>>>> device nodes with different compatible strings like this? I doubt drivers
>>>>> associated with each of those compatible strings could be ever reused on
>>>>> different Exynos SoCs.
>>>
>>> No special reason. I added the clock controller according to clock domain
>>> separately. As I knew, samsung clk drivers use this way to support various
>>> clock domains. For exmaple, drivers/clk/samsung/clk-exynos7.c.
>>
>> I'm afraid exynos7 has that initialization ordering issue, unfortunately I
>> didn't notice it before.
>
> OK.
>
>>
>>>>> There are hardware dependencies between these clock domains, which are
>>>>> not currently modelled in DT with your binding.
>>>
>>> Right. current samsung clock drivers cannot show the hierarchy among clock
>>> domains in DT.
>>>
>>>>> IOW, there is currently
>>>>> no way to ensure proper registration order of the CMUs (clock domains).
>>>>> This may be important in some cases.
>>>>>
>>>>> To address this we could either add clocks/clock-names properties in
>>>>> respective CMU device nodes, pointing to any clocks in other CMU(s) or
>>>>> make a single device node for the whole clock controller, with an
>>>>> aggregated reg entry, e.g.
>>>>>
>>>>> cmu: clock-controller@...0030000 {
>>>>> compatible = "samsung,exynos5433-cmu";
>>>>> reg = <0x10030000 0x0c04>,
>>>>> <0x10fc0000 0x0c04>,
>>>>> <0x105b0000 0x100c>,
>>>>> <0x14c80000 0x0b08>,
>>>>> <0x10040000 0x0b20>,
>>>>> <0x156e0000 0x0b04>,
>>>>> ...
>>>>> reg-names = "top", "cpif", "mif", "peric", "peris", "fsys"...
>>>>> #clock-cells = <1>;
>>>>> };
>>>
>>> If you make a single device node to support various clock domain,
>>> How are you indicate the specific clock in some clock domain?
>>
>> This might be an issue, we would need to make all the clk indexes a one
>> contiguous set.
>
> Exynos5433 has a whole lot of clocks against Exynos4 series clocks.
> So, if make all the clocks in the same set, I wonder making too huge set.
> It may cause the complicated code to find the proper clock or to analyze
> the clock driver.
>
> I'm wondering if there is really any use of having such
>> information expressed explicitly in DT, or it would just make the DT
>> binding closer resembling the SoC's documentation ?
>
> If we show the hierarchy or dependency between clock domains,
> I think we should modify "structure samsung_clk_provider"
> to include dependency information between clock domains.
> (It is just my opinion, this opinion could be not proper solution.)
>
> Because
> when we use the common clk framework without adding
> any dependency information between clock domains, it is well working.
>
>>
>> Similarly, the clock controller is divided into subdomains in older SoCs,
>> like exynos4, yet we do not create separate device nodes for each domain.
>> Is reference to each individual clock domain required in any other SoC's
>> part in case of exynos5433 ?
>
> There is a difference between exynos4 cmu and exynos5433 cmu.
> exynos4. As I knew, Exynos4 series have the one more clock domain.
> But, there are not any IPs between clock domains. We can check it as following
> read base address and scope.
>
> The base address and range of Exynos4412 clock domain :
> - 0x1003_0000 ~ 0x1003_CA08
> - 0x1004_0000 ~ 0x1004_8B0C
>
> But, the clock domain in base address map of exynos5433 is located
> in non-continuous range. Also, there are un-related IPs to clocks.
> (e.g., mct 101c_0000, gic 1100_1000, serial0 14c1_0000, pinctrl 1058_0000 ...)
> If we make the one dt node for clock domains like exynos4,
> I think it may cause the possible issue that clock drivers may access
> the un-related memory-mapped region.
>
> The base address and range of Exynos5433 clock domain :
> - top domain : 0x1003_0000 ~ 0x1003_0c04
> - cpif domain : 0x10fc_0000 ~ 0x10fc_0x0c04
> - mif domain : 0x105b_0000 ~ 0x105b_0x100c
> - peric domain : 0x14c8_0000 ~ 0x14c8_0b08
> - peris domain : 0x1004_0000 ~ 0x1004_0x0b20
> - fsys domain : 0x156e_0000 ~ 0x156e_0b04
>
>>
>>> For example,
>>> The serial dt node in exynos7.dtsi. serial_0 dt node use the uart clocks
>>> in 'clock_peric0' clock domain and serial_1 dt node use the uart clocks
>>> in 'clock-peric1' clock domain.
>>>
>>> When using the clock in specific clock domain,
>>> we need to phandle(e.g., clock_peric0, clock_peric1) of clock domain.
>>>
>>> serial_0: serial@...30000 {
>>> compatible = "samsung,exynos4210-uart";
>>> reg = <0x13630000 0x100>;
>>> interrupts = <0 440 0>;
>>> clocks = <&clock_peric0 PCLK_UART0>,
>>> <&clock_peric0 SCLK_UART0>;
>>> clock-names = "uart", "clk_uart_baud0";
>>> status = "disabled";
>>> };
>>>
>>> serial_1: serial@...20000 {
>>> compatible = "samsung,exynos4210-uart";
>>> reg = <0x14c20000 0x100>;
>>> interrupts = <0 456 0>;
>>> clocks = <&clock_peric1 PCLK_UART1>,
>>> <&clock_peric1 SCLK_UART1>;
>>> clock-names = "uart", "clk_uart_baud0";
>>> status = "disabled";
>>> };
>>>
>>>>> Then we could modify samsung_cmu_register_one() function by adding
>>>>> the reg entry index or name argument. What do you think ?
>>>
>>> If there is more reasonable way to show the dependency between clock domains,
>>> I will agree.
>>
>> The other option I mentioned is specifying all parent clocks of a given
>> clock domain in its device node with clocks(/clock-names) properties.
>> But it might be a bit hard to list all the clock domain dependencies
>> this way
>
> Right, I agree that it is too hard.
>
> Regards,
> Chanwoo Choi
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-samsung-soc" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists