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: <2e26f672-c6d4-6f8f-00ec-231df3f71802@codeaurora.org>
Date:   Tue, 27 Mar 2018 13:20:07 +0530
From:   Manu Gautam <mgautam@...eaurora.org>
To:     Vivek Gautam <vivek.gautam@...eaurora.org>,
        Doug Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>
Cc:     Kishon Vijay Abraham I <kishon@...com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org,
        Varadarajan Narayanan <varada@...eaurora.org>,
        Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
        Wei Yongjun <weiyongjun1@...wei.com>,
        Fengguang Wu <fengguang.wu@...el.com>, anischal@...eaurora.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/6] phy: qcom-qmp: Enable pipe_clk before checking
 USB3 PHY_STATUS

Hi,


On 3/27/2018 12:26 PM, Vivek Gautam wrote:
>
>
> On 3/27/2018 10:37 AM, Manu Gautam wrote:
>> Hi Doug,
>>
>>
>> On 3/27/2018 9:56 AM, Doug Anderson wrote:
>>> Manu
>>>
>>> On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 11:11 PM, Manu Gautam <mgautam@...eaurora.org> wrote:
>>>> QMP PHY for USB mode requires pipe_clk for calibration and PLL lock
>>>> to take place. This clock is output from PHY to GCC clock_ctl and then
>>>> fed back to QMP PHY and is available from PHY only after PHY is reset
>>>> and initialized, hence it can't be enabled too early in initialization
>>>> sequence.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Manu Gautam <mgautam@...eaurora.org>
>>>> ---
>>>>   drivers/phy/qualcomm/phy-qcom-qmp.c | 33 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
>>>>   1 file changed, 32 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>> So it's now new with this patch, but it's more obvious with this
>>> patch.  It seems like "UFS/PCIE" is kinda broken w/ respect to how it
>>> controls its clock.  Specifically:
>>>
>>> * If you init the PHY but don't power it on, then you "exit" the PHY:
>>> you'll disable/unprepare "pipe_clk" even though you never
>>> prepare/enabled it.
>>>
>>> * If you init the PHY, power it on, power it off, power it on, and
>>> exit the PHY: you'll leave the clock prepared one extra time.
>>>
>>> Specifically I'd expect: for UFS/PCIE the disable/unprepare should be
>>> symmetric with the enable/prepare and should be in "power off", not in
>>> exit.
>>>
>>> ...or did I miss something?
>>>
>>>
>>> Interestingly, your patch fixes this problem for USB3 (where init/exit
>>> are now symmetric), but leaves the problem there for UFS/PCIE.
>>>
>> Thanks for review.
>> One of the reason why pipe_clk is disabled as part of phy_exit is that
>> halt_check from clk_disable reports error if called after PHY has been
>> powered down or phy_exit.
>> I believe that warning should be ignored in qcom gcc-clock driver
>> (for applicable platforms) by using BRANCH_HALT_DELAY as halt_check
>> for pipe_clk and performing clk_disable from power_off for UFS/PCIE.
> UFS doesn't use PIPE clock.

Yes, UFS PHY doesn't use one. But similar to pipe_clk there are rx/tx symbol_clk
output from PHY that is used by UFS controller. I will update code comments
to not refer UFS for pipe_clk.

> But considering for PCIe, if we disable pipe clock when phy is still running, then
> it shouldn't be a problem. We should also not see the halt warning as the gcc
> driver should be able to just turn the gate off.
> The reason why it will throw that error is when the parent clock to that gate
> is gated, i.e. the pipe clock is not flowing on that branch.

I got the confirmation that pipe_clk is needed for PCIE as well for its
initialization to happen successfully. So we do need clock driver change
to fix this in PHY driver.

>
> Best regards
> Vivek
>
>>
>> I can implement that as separate patch once dependent gcc driver
>> patch(es) gets in. Would that be ok?
>>
>> -Manu
>>
>

-- 
The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum,
a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ