linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 19/23] drivers/fsi: Add GPIO based FSI master

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: <1491774092.4166.195.camel@kernel.crashing.org>
Date:   Mon, 10 Apr 2017 07:41:32 +1000
From:   Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
To:     Christopher Bostic <cbostic@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Joel Stanley <joel@....id.au>
Cc:     Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>, rostedt@...dmis.org,
        mingo@...hat.com, Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Andrew Jeffery <andrew@...id.au>,
        Alistair Popple <alistair@...ple.id.au>,
        "Edward A . James" <eajames@...ibm.com>,
        Jeremy Kerr <jk@...abs.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 19/23] drivers/fsi: Add GPIO based FSI master

On Sun, 2017-04-09 at 16:22 -0500, Christopher Bostic wrote:
> A 3 microsecond delay is required, however, to prevent occasional issues 
> during heavy FSI bus load stress testing.
> A 1 nanosecond delay using ndelay(1) had been specified prior to this 
> but after looking more closely at real time performance it turned out to 
> actually be roughly 1-2 microseconds.   This appears to be the minimum 
> resolution using the delay() linux libraries on the AST2400/2500.   
> Given this, increasing delay to 3 microseconds doesn't impact 
> performance much considering I can now remove the sample input delay 
> based on your recommendations to re-order the two clock delays.

This is huge delays. We should consider a AST2xxx specific variant of
the backend that uses nops or similar lab-calibrated constructs
instead. Otherwise we are stuck in the kHz range, this is a >200Mhz bus
:)

I don't understand why 3us delay would thus be necessary.

Where about did you observe issues ? Could it be that you don't wait
long enough in the transitions from write to read ?

Cheers,
Ben.