linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 06/14] ARM: sun8i: clk: Add clk-factor rate application method

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]

Message-ID: <64d0c1e2-d818-0806-7c92-c10603b4f6f5@megous.com>
Date:	Fri, 1 Jul 2016 02:53:52 +0200
From:	Ondřej Jirman <megous@...ous.com>
To:	Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@...e-electrons.com>
Cc:	dev@...ux-sunxi.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
	Michael Turquette <mturquette@...libre.com>,
	Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...eaurora.org>,
	Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
	Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
	Chen-Yu Tsai <wens@...e.org>,
	Emilio López <emilio@...pez.com.ar>,
	"open list:COMMON CLK FRAMEWORK" <linux-clk@...r.kernel.org>,
	"open list:OPEN FIRMWARE AND FLATTENED DEVICE TREE BINDINGS" 
	<devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
	open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 06/14] ARM: sun8i: clk: Add clk-factor rate application
 method

On 30.6.2016 22:40, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On Sat, Jun 25, 2016 at 05:45:03AM +0200, megous@...ous.com wrote:
>> From: Ondrej Jirman <megous@...ous.com>
>>
>> PLL1 on H3 requires special factors application algorithm,
>> when the rate is changed. This algorithm was extracted
>> from the arisc code that handles frequency scaling
>> in the BSP kernel.
>>
>> This commit adds optional apply function to
>> struct factors_data, that can implement non-trivial
>> factors application method, when necessary.
>>
>> Also struct clk_factors_config is extended with position
>> of the PLL lock flag.
> 
> Have you tested the current implementation, and found that it was not
> working, or did you duplicate the arisc code directly?

Also of note is that similar code probably doesn't crash in u-boot,
because there, before changing the PLL1 clock, the cpu is switched to
24MHz osc, so it is not overclocked, even if factors align in such a way
that you'd get the behavior I described in the other email.

>>  /**
>> + * sun8i_h3_apply_pll1_factors() - applies n, k, m, p factors to the
>> + * register using an algorithm that tries to reserve the PLL lock
>> + */
>> +
>> +static void sun8i_h3_apply_pll1_factors(struct clk_factors *factors, struct factors_request *req)
>> +{
>> +	const struct clk_factors_config *config = factors->config;
>> +	u32 reg;
>> +
>> +	/* Fetch the register value */
>> +	reg = readl(factors->reg);
>> +
>> +	if (FACTOR_GET(config->pshift, config->pwidth, reg) < req->p) {
>> +		reg = FACTOR_SET(config->pshift, config->pwidth, reg, req->p);
>> +
>> +		writel(reg, factors->reg);
>> +		__delay(2000);
>> +	}
> 
> So there was some doubts about the fact that P was being used, or at
> least that it was useful.
> 
>> +	if (FACTOR_GET(config->mshift, config->mwidth, reg) < req->m) {
>> +		reg = FACTOR_SET(config->mshift, config->mwidth, reg, req->m);
>> +
>> +		writel(reg, factors->reg);
>> +		__delay(2000);
>> +	}
>> +
>> +	reg = FACTOR_SET(config->nshift, config->nwidth, reg, req->n);
>> +	reg = FACTOR_SET(config->kshift, config->kwidth, reg, req->k);
>> +
>> +	writel(reg, factors->reg);
>> +	__delay(20);
>> +
>> +	while (!(readl(factors->reg) & (1 << config->lock)));
> 
> So, they are applying the dividers first, and then applying the
> multipliers, and then wait for the PLL to stabilize.
> 
>> +
>> +	if (FACTOR_GET(config->mshift, config->mwidth, reg) > req->m) {
>> +		reg = FACTOR_SET(config->mshift, config->mwidth, reg, req->m);
>> +
>> +		writel(reg, factors->reg);
>> +		__delay(2000);
>> +	}
>> +
>> +	if (FACTOR_GET(config->pshift, config->pwidth, reg) > req->p) {
>> +		reg = FACTOR_SET(config->pshift, config->pwidth, reg, req->p);
>> +
>> +		writel(reg, factors->reg);
>> +		__delay(2000);
>> +	}
> 
> However, this is kind of weird, why would you need to re-apply the
> dividers? Nothing really changes. Have you tried without that part?
> 
> Since this is really specific, I guess you could simply make the
> clk_ops for the nkmp clocks public, and just re-implement set_rate
> using that logic.
> 
> You might also need to set an upper limit on P, since the last value
> (4) is not a valid one.
> 
> I guess you could do that by adding a max field in the __ccu_div
> structure.
> 
> Maxime
> 



Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (820 bytes)