linux-kernel - Re: Adding a .platform_init callback to sdhci_arasan

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: <CAD=FV=XH8_K2OAwmDKrOD=eq_VevG01UK8=cEOmTbkZ11+Z+zA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 28 Nov 2016 12:32:35 -0800
From:   Doug Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>
To:     Mason <slash.tmp@...e.fr>
Cc:     Sebastian Frias <sf84@...oste.net>,
        Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>,
        Michal Simek <michal.simek@...inx.com>,
        Sören Brinkmann <soren.brinkmann@...inx.com>,
        Jerry Huang <Chang-Ming.Huang@...escale.com>,
        Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>,
        Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
        P L Sai Krishna <lakshmis@...inx.com>
Subject: Re: Adding a .platform_init callback to sdhci_arasan_ops

Hi,

On Mon, Nov 28, 2016 at 11:32 AM, Mason <slash.tmp@...e.fr> wrote:
> On 28/11/2016 18:46, Doug Anderson wrote:
>
>> As argued in my original patch the field "corecfg_baseclkfreq" is
>> documented in the generic Arasan document
>> <https://arasan.com/wp-content/media/eMMC-5-1-Total-Solution_Rev-1-3.pdf>
>> and thus is unlikely to be Rockchip specific.
>
> I downloaded the data sheet, which doesn't mention registers,
> but "pins" and "signals". Does that mean it is up to every
> platform to decide how to group these wires into individual
> registers?

As I understand it: yes.  ...but remember that I'm not arasan nor even
Rockchip and I don't have any access to that they provide their IP
licensees.

That's why I structured my config the way it did.  It means that no
matter how a licensee stuffs these configs into their register map we
can support it.  Every configuration is individually described by a
register offset, width, and mask.  Technically the width _ought_ to be
the same for all users, so I guess you could try to optimize that out.
...but it doesn't hurt the way it is.

> corecfg_baseclkfreq[7:0]
> Base Clock Frequency for SD Clock.
> This is the frequency of the xin_clk.
>
> How can 8 bits encode a frequency?
> Is there an implicit LUT? Is it a MHz count?

Use the source.  :)

 * The corecfg_baseclkfreq is supposed to contain the MHz of clk_xin.

It also turns out to match the SDHCI spec "Base Clock Frequency for SD
Clock".  See below.

---

It actually turns out that both of the "corecfg" bits we're setting
right now for Rockchip are a bit on the silly side.  All they do is
get mirrored out the other end in the "caps" register.  I found that
out from folks at Rockchip much later after I wrote my patch.

So, for instance, setting corecfg_clockmultiplier (I'm told) does
nothing more than control the bits read here:

  (caps[1] & SDHCI_CLOCK_MUL_MASK) >> SDHCI_CLOCK_MUL_SHIFT;

I can certainly see that they are mirrored, but I have to just take it
on faith that it does nothing else.

>>> w(grf + 0xf02c, 0x00ff0011)
>>> hex((r(sdhci + 0x44) & 0x00ff0000) >> 16)
'0x11L'

...and similar for the speed:

>>> w(grf + 0xf000, 0xff009700)
>>> hex((r(sdhci + 0x40) & 0x0000ff00) >> 8)
'0x97L'

-Doug