linux-kernel - [PATCH v3 03/13] clk: Avoid sending high rates to downstream clocks during set

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, 20 Mar 2015 23:45:22 -0700
From:	Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...eaurora.org>
To:	Mike Turquette <mturquette@...aro.org>,
	Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...eaurora.org>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
	Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
Subject: [PATCH v3 03/13] clk: Avoid sending high rates to downstream clocks during set_rate

If a clock is on and we call clk_set_rate() on it we may get into
a situation where the clock temporarily increases in rate
dramatically while we walk the tree and call .set_rate() ops. For
example, consider a case where a PLL feeds into a divider.
Initially the divider is set to divide by 1 and the PLL is
running fairly slow (100MHz). The downstream consumer of the
divider output can only handle rates =< 400 MHz, but the divider
can only choose between divisors of 1 and 4.

 +-----+   +----------------+
 | PLL |-->| div 1 or div 4 |---> consumer device
 +-----+   +----------------+

To achieve a rate of 400MHz on the output of the divider, we
would have to set the rate of the PLL to 1.6 GHz and then divide
it by 4. The current code would set the PLL to 1.6GHz first while
the divider is still set to 1, thus causing the downstream
consumer of the clock to receive a few clock cycles of 1.6GHz
clock (far beyond it's maximum acceptable rate). We should be
changing the divider first before increasing the PLL rate to
avoid this problem.

Therefore, set the rate of any child clocks that are increasing
in rate from their current rate so that they can increase their
dividers if necessary. We assume that there isn't such a thing as
minimum rate requirements.

Signed-off-by: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...eaurora.org>
---
 drivers/clk/clk.c | 34 ++++++++++++++++++++++------------
 1 file changed, 22 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/clk/clk.c b/drivers/clk/clk.c
index eb0152961d3c..0712bea649c1 100644
--- a/drivers/clk/clk.c
+++ b/drivers/clk/clk.c
@@ -1689,21 +1689,24 @@ static struct clk_core *clk_propagate_rate_change(struct clk_core *clk,
  * walk down a subtree and set the new rates notifying the rate
  * change on the way
  */
-static void clk_change_rate(struct clk_core *clk)
+static void
+clk_change_rate(struct clk_core *clk, unsigned long best_parent_rate)
 {
 	struct clk_core *child;
 	struct hlist_node *tmp;
 	unsigned long old_rate;
-	unsigned long best_parent_rate = 0;
 	bool skip_set_rate = false;
 	struct clk_core *old_parent;
 
-	old_rate = clk->rate;
+	hlist_for_each_entry(child, &clk->children, child_node) {
+		/* Skip children who will be reparented to another clock */
+		if (child->new_parent && child->new_parent != clk)
+			continue;
+		if (child->new_rate > child->rate)
+			clk_change_rate(child, clk->new_rate);
+	}
 
-	if (clk->new_parent)
-		best_parent_rate = clk->new_parent->rate;
-	else if (clk->parent)
-		best_parent_rate = clk->parent->rate;
+	old_rate = clk->rate;
 
 	if (clk->new_parent && clk->new_parent != clk->parent) {
 		old_parent = __clk_set_parent_before(clk, clk->new_parent);
@@ -1723,7 +1726,7 @@ static void clk_change_rate(struct clk_core *clk)
 	if (!skip_set_rate && clk->ops->set_rate)
 		clk->ops->set_rate(clk->hw, clk->new_rate, best_parent_rate);
 
-	clk->rate = clk_recalc(clk, best_parent_rate);
+	clk->rate = clk->new_rate;
 
 	if (clk->notifier_count && old_rate != clk->rate)
 		__clk_notify(clk, POST_RATE_CHANGE, old_rate, clk->rate);
@@ -1736,12 +1739,13 @@ static void clk_change_rate(struct clk_core *clk)
 		/* Skip children who will be reparented to another clock */
 		if (child->new_parent && child->new_parent != clk)
 			continue;
-		clk_change_rate(child);
+		if (child->new_rate != child->rate)
+			clk_change_rate(child, clk->new_rate);
 	}
 
 	/* handle the new child who might not be in clk->children yet */
-	if (clk->new_child)
-		clk_change_rate(clk->new_child);
+	if (clk->new_child && clk->new_child->new_rate != clk->new_child->rate)
+		clk_change_rate(clk->new_child, clk->new_rate);
 }
 
 static int clk_core_set_rate_nolock(struct clk_core *clk,
@@ -1750,6 +1754,7 @@ static int clk_core_set_rate_nolock(struct clk_core *clk,
 	struct clk_core *top, *fail_clk;
 	unsigned long rate = req_rate;
 	int ret = 0;
+	unsigned long parent_rate;
 
 	if (!clk)
 		return 0;
@@ -1775,8 +1780,13 @@ static int clk_core_set_rate_nolock(struct clk_core *clk,
 		return -EBUSY;
 	}
 
+	if (top->parent)
+		parent_rate = top->parent->rate;
+	else
+		parent_rate = 0;
+
 	/* change the rates */
-	clk_change_rate(top);
+	clk_change_rate(top, parent_rate);
 
 	clk->req_rate = req_rate;
 
-- 
The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum,
a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project

--
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/