| 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
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 22 May 2018 16:13:57 +0530
From: Taniya Das <tdas@...eaurora.org>
To: skannan@...eaurora.org, Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>, robh@...nel.org,
Rajendra Nayak <rnayak@...eaurora.org>,
Amit Nischal <anischal@...eaurora.org>,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org, amit.kucheria@...aro.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] cpufreq: qcom-fw: Add support for QCOM cpufreq FW
driver
Hello Viresh,
Thanks for your comments.
On 5/22/2018 12:36 AM, skannan@...eaurora.org wrote:
> On 2018-05-21 02:01, Viresh Kumar wrote:
>> On 19-05-18, 23:04, Taniya Das wrote:
>>> The CPUfreq FW present in some QCOM chipsets offloads the steps
>>> necessary
>>> for changing the frequency of CPUs. The driver implements the cpufreq
>>> driver interface for this firmware.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Saravana Kannan <skannan@...eaurora.org>
>>> Signed-off-by: Taniya Das <tdas@...eaurora.org>
>>> ---
>>> drivers/cpufreq/Kconfig.arm | 9 ++
>>> drivers/cpufreq/Makefile | 1 +
>>> drivers/cpufreq/qcom-cpufreq-fw.c | 317
>>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>> 3 files changed, 327 insertions(+)
>>> create mode 100644 drivers/cpufreq/qcom-cpufreq-fw.c
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/Kconfig.arm b/drivers/cpufreq/Kconfig.arm
>>> index 96b35b8..571f6b4 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/cpufreq/Kconfig.arm
>>> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/Kconfig.arm
>>> @@ -301,3 +301,12 @@ config ARM_PXA2xx_CPUFREQ
>>> This add the CPUFreq driver support for Intel PXA2xx SOCs.
>>>
>>> If in doubt, say N.
>>> +
>>> +config ARM_QCOM_CPUFREQ_FW
>>> + bool "QCOM CPUFreq FW driver"
>>
>> During last review I didn't say that this driver shouldn't be a
>> module, but that you need to fix things to make it a module. I am fine
>> though if you don't want this to be a module ever.
>>
>>> + help
>>> + Support for the CPUFreq FW driver.
>>> + The CPUfreq FW preset in some QCOM chipsets offloads the steps
>>> + necessary for changing the frequency of CPUs. The driver
>>> + implements the cpufreq driver interface for this firmware.
>>> + Say Y if you want to support CPUFreq FW.
>>> diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/Makefile b/drivers/cpufreq/Makefile
>>> index 8d24ade..a3edbce 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/cpufreq/Makefile
>>> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/Makefile
>>> @@ -85,6 +85,7 @@ obj-$(CONFIG_ARM_TEGRA124_CPUFREQ) +=
>>> tegra124-cpufreq.o
>>> obj-$(CONFIG_ARM_TEGRA186_CPUFREQ) += tegra186-cpufreq.o
>>> obj-$(CONFIG_ARM_TI_CPUFREQ) += ti-cpufreq.o
>>> obj-$(CONFIG_ARM_VEXPRESS_SPC_CPUFREQ) += vexpress-spc-cpufreq.o
>>> +obj-$(CONFIG_ARM_QCOM_CPUFREQ_FW) += qcom-cpufreq-fw.o
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ##################################################################################
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/qcom-cpufreq-fw.c
>>> b/drivers/cpufreq/qcom-cpufreq-fw.c
>>> new file mode 100644
>>> index 0000000..0e66de0
>>> --- /dev/null
>>> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/qcom-cpufreq-fw.c
>>> @@ -0,0 +1,317 @@
>>> +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
>>> +/*
>>> + * Copyright (c) 2018, The Linux Foundation. All rights reserved.
>>> + */
>>> +
>>> +#include <linux/cpufreq.h>
>>> +#include <linux/init.h>
>>> +#include <linux/kernel.h>
>>> +#include <linux/module.h>
>>> +#include <linux/of_address.h>
>>> +#include <linux/of_platform.h>
>>> +
>>> +#define INIT_RATE 300000000UL
>>> +#define XO_RATE 19200000UL
>>> +#define LUT_MAX_ENTRIES 40U
>>> +#define CORE_COUNT_VAL(val) ((val & GENMASK(18, 16)) >> 16)
>>> +#define LUT_ROW_SIZE 32
>>> +
>>> +struct cpufreq_qcom {
>>> + struct cpufreq_frequency_table *table;
>>> + struct device *dev;
>>> + void __iomem *perf_base;
>>> + void __iomem *lut_base;
>>> + cpumask_t related_cpus;
>>> + unsigned int max_cores;
>>> +};
>>> +
>>> +static struct cpufreq_qcom *qcom_freq_domain_map[NR_CPUS];
>>> +
>>> +static int
>>> +qcom_cpufreq_fw_target_index(struct cpufreq_policy *policy, unsigned
>>> int index)
>>> +{
>>> + struct cpufreq_qcom *c = policy->driver_data;
>>> +
>>> + if (index >= LUT_MAX_ENTRIES) {
>>> + dev_err(c->dev,
>>> + "Passing an index (%u) that's greater than max (%d)\n",
>>> + index, LUT_MAX_ENTRIES - 1);
>>> + return -EINVAL;
>>> + }
>>
>> This is never going to happen unless there is a bug in cpufreq core.
>> You are allocating only 40 entries for the cpufreq table and this will
>> always be 0-39. None of the other drivers is checking this I believe
>> and neither should you. This is the only routine which will get call
>> very frequently and we better not add unnecessary stuff here.
>>
Yes, I would remove this in the next series.
>>> + writel_relaxed(index, c->perf_base);
>>> +
>>> + /* Make sure the write goes through before proceeding */
>>> + mb();
>>
>> Btw what happens right after this is done ? Are we guaranteed that the
>> frequency is updated in the hardware after this ? What about enabling
>> fast-switch for your platform ? Look at drivers/cpufreq/scmi-cpufreq.c
>> to see how that is done.
>
> Yeah, I don't think this is needed really.
>
Just want to make sure it doesn't really sit in the write buffer before
return.
>>
>>> + return 0;
>>> +}
>>> +
>>> +static unsigned int qcom_cpufreq_fw_get(unsigned int cpu)
>>> +{
>>> + struct cpufreq_qcom *c;
>>> + unsigned int index;
>>> +
>>> + c = qcom_freq_domain_map[cpu];
>>> + if (!c)
>>> + return -ENODEV;
>>
>> Return 0 on error here.
>>
Would update this in the next patch.
>>> +
>>> + index = readl_relaxed(c->perf_base);
>>> + index = min(index, LUT_MAX_ENTRIES - 1);
>>
>> Will the hardware ever read a value over 39 here ?
>
> The register could be initialized to whatever before the kernel is
> brought up. Don't want to depend on it being correct to avoid out of
> bounds access that could leak data.
>
>
>>> +
>>> + return c->table[index].frequency;
>>> +}
>>> +
>>> +static int qcom_cpufreq_fw_cpu_init(struct cpufreq_policy *policy)
>>> +{
>>> + struct cpufreq_qcom *c;
>>> +
>>> + c = qcom_freq_domain_map[policy->cpu];
>>> + if (!c) {
>>> + pr_err("No scaling support for CPU%d\n", policy->cpu);
>>> + return -ENODEV;
>>> + }
>>> +
>>> + cpumask_copy(policy->cpus, &c->related_cpus);
>>> + policy->freq_table = c->table;
>>> + policy->driver_data = c;
>>> +
>>> + return 0;
>>> +}
>>> +
>>> +static struct freq_attr *qcom_cpufreq_fw_attr[] = {
>>> + &cpufreq_freq_attr_scaling_available_freqs,
>>> + &cpufreq_freq_attr_scaling_boost_freqs,
>>> + NULL
>>> +};
>>> +
>>> +static struct cpufreq_driver cpufreq_qcom_fw_driver = {
>>> + .flags = CPUFREQ_STICKY | CPUFREQ_NEED_INITIAL_FREQ_CHECK |
>>> + CPUFREQ_HAVE_GOVERNOR_PER_POLICY,
>>> + .verify = cpufreq_generic_frequency_table_verify,
>>> + .target_index = qcom_cpufreq_fw_target_index,
>>> + .get = qcom_cpufreq_fw_get,
>>> + .init = qcom_cpufreq_fw_cpu_init,
>>> + .name = "qcom-cpufreq-fw",
>>> + .attr = qcom_cpufreq_fw_attr,
>>> + .boost_enabled = true,
>>> +};
>>> +
>>> +static int qcom_read_lut(struct platform_device *pdev,
>>> + struct cpufreq_qcom *c)
>>> +{
>>> + struct device *dev = &pdev->dev;
>>> + u32 data, src, lval, i, core_count, prev_cc;
>>> +
>>> + c->table = devm_kcalloc(dev, LUT_MAX_ENTRIES + 1,
>>> + sizeof(*c->table), GFP_KERNEL);
>>> + if (!c->table)
>>> + return -ENOMEM;
>>> +
>>> + for (i = 0; i < LUT_MAX_ENTRIES; i++) {
>>> + data = readl_relaxed(c->lut_base + i * LUT_ROW_SIZE);
>>> + src = ((data & GENMASK(31, 30)) >> 30);
>>> + lval = (data & GENMASK(7, 0));
>>> + core_count = CORE_COUNT_VAL(data);
>>> +
>>> + if (!src)
>>> + c->table[i].frequency = INIT_RATE / 1000;
>>> + else
>>> + c->table[i].frequency = XO_RATE * lval / 1000;
>>> +
>>> + c->table[i].driver_data = c->table[i].frequency;
>>
>> Why do you need to use driver_data here? Why can't you simple use
>> frequency field in the below conditional expressions ?
>>
The frequency field would be marked INVALID in case the core count does
not match and the frequency data would be lost.
>>> +
>>> + dev_dbg(dev, "index=%d freq=%d, core_count %d\n",
>>> + i, c->table[i].frequency, core_count);
>>> +
>>> + if (core_count != c->max_cores)
>>> + c->table[i].frequency = CPUFREQ_ENTRY_INVALID;
>>> +
>>> + /*
>>> + * Two of the same frequencies with the same core counts means
>>> + * end of table.
>>> + */
>>> + if (i > 0 && c->table[i - 1].driver_data ==
>>> + c->table[i].driver_data && prev_cc == core_count) {
>>> + struct cpufreq_frequency_table *prev = &c->table[i - 1];
>>> +
>>> + if (prev->frequency == CPUFREQ_ENTRY_INVALID) {
>>
>> There can only be a single boost frequency at max ?
>
> As of now, yes. If that changes, we'll change this code later.
>
>>> + prev->flags = CPUFREQ_BOOST_FREQ;
>>> + prev->frequency = prev->driver_data;
>>
>> Okay you are using driver_data as a local variable to keep this value
>> safe which you might have overwritten. Maybe use a simple variable
>> prev_freq for this. It would be much more readable in that case and
>> you wouldn't end up abusing the driver_data field.
>>
Please correct me, currently the driver_data is not used by cpufreq core
and that was the reason to use it. In case you still think it is not a
good way to handle it, I would try to handle it differently.
>>> + }
>>> +
>>> + break;
>>> + }
>>> + prev_cc = core_count;
>>> + }
>>> + c->table[i].frequency = CPUFREQ_TABLE_END;
>>
>> Wouldn't you end up writing on c->table[40].frequency here if there
>> are 40 frequency value present ?
>
> Yeah, the loop condition needs to be fixed.
>
The table allocation is done for 'LUT_MAX_ENTRIES + 1'.
Yes in case we have all [0-39] (i.e 40 entries) read from the hardware,
would store the same and mark the 40th index as table end. Please
correct if I missed something in your comment.
> -Saravana
--
QUALCOMM INDIA, on behalf of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member
of Code Aurora Forum, hosted by The Linux Foundation.
--
Powered by blists - more mailing lists