linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] clk: rockchip: fix incorrect parent for rk3399's {c,g}pll_aclk_perihp

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:	Mon, 16 May 2016 08:49:01 -0700
From:	Doug Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>
To:	Xing Zheng <zhengxing@...k-chips.com>
Cc:	Brian Norris <briannorris@...omium.org>,
	Michael Turquette <mturquette@...libre.com>,
	Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...eaurora.org>,
	linux-clk <linux-clk@...r.kernel.org>,
	Heiko Stuebner <heiko@...ech.de>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
	"open list:ARM/Rockchip SoC..." <linux-rockchip@...ts.infradead.org>,
	Brian Norris <computersforpeace@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] clk: rockchip: fix incorrect parent for rk3399's {c,g}pll_aclk_perihp_src

Hi,

On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 8:36 PM, Xing Zheng <zhengxing@...k-chips.com> wrote:
> Hi Doug,
>
>
> On 2016年05月14日 04:10, Doug Anderson wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 11:42 AM, Brian Norris <briannorris@...omium.org>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> From: Xing Zheng <zhengxing@...k-chips.com>
>>>
>>> There was a typo, swapping 'c' <--> 'g'.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Xing Zheng <zhengxing@...k-chips.com>
>>> Signed-off-by: Brian Norris <briannorris@...omium.org>
>>> ---
>>>   drivers/clk/rockchip/clk-rk3399.c | 4 ++--
>>>   1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/clk/rockchip/clk-rk3399.c
>>> b/drivers/clk/rockchip/clk-rk3399.c
>>> index 145756c4f3c8..9f86bfef70f7 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/clk/rockchip/clk-rk3399.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/clk/rockchip/clk-rk3399.c
>>> @@ -832,9 +832,9 @@ static struct rockchip_clk_branch
>>> rk3399_clk_branches[] __initdata = {
>>>                          RK3399_CLKGATE_CON(13), 1, GFLAGS),
>>>
>>>          /* perihp */
>>> -       GATE(0, "cpll_aclk_perihp_src", "gpll", CLK_IGNORE_UNUSED,
>>> +       GATE(0, "cpll_aclk_perihp_src", "cpll", CLK_IGNORE_UNUSED,
>>>                          RK3399_CLKGATE_CON(5), 0, GFLAGS),
>>> -       GATE(0, "gpll_aclk_perihp_src", "cpll", CLK_IGNORE_UNUSED,
>>> +       GATE(0, "gpll_aclk_perihp_src", "gpll", CLK_IGNORE_UNUSED,
>>>                          RK3399_CLKGATE_CON(5), 1, GFLAGS),
>>>          COMPOSITE(ACLK_PERIHP, "aclk_perihp", mux_aclk_perihp_p,
>>> CLK_IGNORE_UNUSED,
>>>                          RK3399_CLKSEL_CON(14), 7, 1, MFLAGS, 0, 5,
>>> DFLAGS,
>>
>> Definitely there was a bug since this table itself was inconsistent.
>> ...and I _think_ this fix is correct, but I'll note that the TRM has
>> more inconsistency here.
>>
>> In the big clock table 'CRU Clock Architecture Diagram', I see:
>>    CLK 4 is CPLL
>>    CLK 5 is GPLL
>>    CLK 125 is aclk_perihp_cpll_src and has 4 (CPLL) as source, with
>> g5[0] as the bit
>>    CLK 126 is aclk_perihp_gpll_src and has 5 (GPLL) as source, with
>> g5[1] as the bit
>>
>> In the definition of CRU_CLKGATE_CON5:
>>    bit 0 shows aclk_perihp_gpll_src_en
>>    bit 1 shows aclk_perihp_cpll_src_en
>>
>>
>> Thus the table shows CPLL as gate5[0] and GPLL as gate5[1].  The
>> register definition shows the opposite.  I'll tend to believe the
>> table over the register definition, but I figured I'd bring it up
>> anyway.
>>
>>
>> Xing Zheng: can you confirm that the table is correct and ask
>> documentation folks to fix the register definition for
>> CRU_CLKGATE_CON5?
>
> Yes, previously, our IC & DOC partner confirmed that the definition of
> CRU_CLKGATE_CON5 should be:
>   bit 0 shows aclk_perihp_cpll_src_en
>   bit 1 shows aclk_perihp_gpll_src_en
>
> Sorry to the incorrect register definition, we will fix them and review the
> TRM again.

Great!

Since we now have extra confirmation that Brian's patch is indeed correct:

Reviewed-by: Douglas Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>