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  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, 23 Apr 2018 11:21:36 -0700
From:   Michael Turquette <mturquette@...libre.com>
To:     Jerome Brunet <jbrunet@...libre.com>,
        Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...eaurora.org>
Cc:     linux-clk@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
        Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
        Quentin Schulz <quentin.schulz@...e-electrons.com>,
        Kevin Hilman <khilman@...libre.com>,
        Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@...e-electrons.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 00/10] clk: implement clock rate protection mechanism

Quoting Jerome Brunet (2018-02-02 04:50:28)
> On Thu, 2018-02-01 at 09:43 -0800, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> > > > > Applied to clk-protect-rate, with the exception that I did not apply
> > > > > "clk: fix CLK_SET_RATE_GATE with clock rate protection" as it breaks
> > > > > qcom clk code.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Stephen, do you plan to fix up the qcom clock code so that the
> > > > > SET_RATE_GATE improvement can go in?
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > I started working on it a while back. Let's see if I can finish
> > > > it off this weekend.
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > Hi Stephen,
> > > 
> > > Have you been able find something to fix the qcom code regarding this issue ?
> > > 
> > 
> > This is what I have. I'm unhappy with a few things. First, I made
> > a spinlock for each clk, which is overkill. Most likely, just a
> > single spinlock is needed per clk-controller device. Second, I
> > haven't finished off the branch/gate part, so gating/ungating of
> > branches needs to be locked as well to prevent branches from
> > turning on while rates change. And finally, the 'branches' list is
> > duplicating a bunch of information about the child clks of an
> > RCG, so it feels like we need a core framework API to enable and
> > disable clks forcibly while remembering what is enabled/disabled
> > or at least to walk the clk tree and call some function.
> 
> Looks similar to Mike's CCR idea ;)

Giving clk provider drivers more control over the clocks that they
provide is a similar concept, but the ancient ccr series dealt almost
exclusively with set_rate and set_parent ops.

> 
> > 
> > The spinlock per clk-controller is duplicating the regmap lock we
> > already have, so we may want a regmap API to grab the lock, and
> > then another regmap API to do reads/writes without grabbing the
> > lock, and then finally release the lock with a regmap unlock API.
> 
> There is 'regsequence' for multiple write in a burst, but that's only if you do
> write only ... I suppose you are more in read/update/writeback mode, so it
> probably does not help much.
> 
> Maybe we could extend regmap's regsequence, to do a sequence of
> regmap_update_bits() ?
> 
> Another possibility could be to provide your own lock/unlock ops when
> registering the regmap. With this, you might be able to supply your own spinlock
> to regmap. This is already supported by regmap, would it help ?

Stephen, was there ever an update on your end? This patch has been
dangling for a while and I thought it was time to ping on it.

Regards,
Mike

> 
> > This part is mostly an optimization, but it would be nice to have
> > so that multiple writes could be done in sequence. This way, the
> > RCG code could do the special locking sequence and the branch
> > code could do the fire and forget single bit update.
>
 

Powered by blists - more mailing lists