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  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:   Tue, 07 Aug 2018 22:58:19 -0700
From:   Stephen Boyd <>
To:     Amit Nischal <>,
        Jordan Crouse <>
Cc:     Michael Turquette <>,
        Andy Gross <>,
        David Brown <>,
        Rajendra Nayak <>,
        Odelu Kukatla <>,
        Taniya Das <>,,,,,
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] clk: qcom: Add clk_rcg2_gfx3d_ops for SDM845

Quoting Jordan Crouse (2018-08-06 08:04:37)
> On Mon, Aug 06, 2018 at 02:37:18PM +0530, Amit Nischal wrote:
> > On 2018-08-03 04:14, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> > >Quoting Amit Nischal (2018-07-30 04:28:56)
> > >>On 2018-07-25 12:28, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> Ok. Sounds good! Is the rate range call really needed? It can't be
> > >>> determined in the PLL code with some table or avoided by making sure
> > >>> GPU
> > >>> uses OPP table with only approved frequencies?
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >>Currently fabia PLL code does not have any table to check this and
> > >>intention
> > >>was to avoid relying on the client to call set_rate with only approved
> > >>frequencies so we have added the set_rate_range() call in the GPUCC
> > >>driver
> > >>in order to set the rate range.
> > >>
> > >
> > >But GPU will use OPP so it doesn't seem like it really buys us anything
> > >here. And it really doesn't matter when the clk driver implementation
> > >doesn't use the min/max to clamp the values of the round_rate()
> > >call. Is
> > >that being done here? I need to double check. I would be more convinced
> > >if the implementation was looking at min/max to constrain the rate
> > >requested.
> > >
> > 
> > So our understanding is that GPU(client) driver will always call the
> > set_rate with approved frequencies only and we can completely rely
> > on the
> > client. Is our understanding is correct?
> First: on sdm845 the software doesn't set the GPU clocks - we rely on the GMU
> firmware to do that on our behalf but for the GPU at least this is an academic
> exercise.

So what is this GPU clk driver for then?

> But that said: traditionally we've expected that the clock driver correctly
> clamp the requested rate to the correct values. In the past we have taken
> advantage of this and we may in the future. I don't think it is reasonable
> to require the leaf driver to only pass "approved" frequencies especially
> since we depend on our own OPP table that may or may not be similar to the
> one used by the clock driver.

Ok. Sounds like things can't be kept in sync between the clk driver and
the OPP tables. Why is that hard to do?

Either way, I'd be fine if the code actually used the frequency limits
to round the rate to something within range, but I don't recall seeing
that being done here. So if the min/max limits stay, the clk driver
should round to within that range.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists