| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20181107122558.mlul4keytay4lrtc@fsr-ub1664-175>
Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2018 12:25:59 +0000
From: Abel Vesa <abel.vesa@....com>
To: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>
CC: Andrey Smirnov <andrew.smirnov@...il.com>,
Anson Huang <anson.huang@....com>,
"A.s. Dong" <aisheng.dong@....com>,
Fabio Estevam <fabio.estevam@....com>,
Lucas Stach <l.stach@...gutronix.de>,
Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
Sascha Hauer <kernel@...gutronix.de>,
dl-linux-imx <linux-imx@....com>, Abel Vesa <abelvesa@...ux.com>,
Shawn Guo <shawnguo@...nel.org>,
Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@...gutronix.de>,
Michael Turquette <mturquette@...libre.com>,
open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"moderated list:ARM/FREESCALE IMX / MXC ARM ARCHITECTURE"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
"open list:COMMON CLK FRAMEWORK" <linux-clk@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 2/5] clk: imx: add fractional PLL output clock
On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 12:59:44PM -0700, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> Quoting Abel Vesa (2018-09-24 03:39:54)
> > From: Lucas Stach <l.stach@...gutronix.de>
> >
> > This is a new clock type introduced on i.MX8.
>
> Ok, what's the clock type? Add another sentence please.
>
Added in the next version a link with the pdf describing the hardware
and specified in the commit message that is a fractional clock.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Lucas Stach <l.stach@...gutronix.de>
> > Signed-off-by: Abel Vesa <abel.vesa@....com>
> [..]
> > diff --git a/drivers/clk/imx/clk-frac-pll.c b/drivers/clk/imx/clk-frac-pll.c
> > new file mode 100644
> > index 0000000..030df76
> > --- /dev/null
> > +++ b/drivers/clk/imx/clk-frac-pll.c
> > @@ -0,0 +1,215 @@
> > +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
> > +/*
> > + * Copyright 2018 NXP.
> > + */
> > +
> > +#include <linux/clk-provider.h>
> > +#include <linux/err.h>
> > +#include <linux/io.h>
> > +#include <linux/iopoll.h>
> > +#include <linux/jiffies.h>
>
> Is this used for something?
>
Removed in the next version.
> > +#include <linux/slab.h>
> > +#include <linux/bitfield.h>
> > +
> > +#include "clk.h"
> [...]
> > +
> > +static unsigned long clk_pll_recalc_rate(struct clk_hw *hw,
> > + unsigned long parent_rate)
> > +{
> > + struct clk_frac_pll *pll = to_clk_frac_pll(hw);
> > + u32 val, divff, divfi, divq;
> > + u64 temp64;
> > +
> > + val = readl_relaxed(pll->base + PLL_CFG0);
> > + divq = ((val & PLL_OUTPUT_DIV_MASK) + 1) * 2;
> > + val = readl_relaxed(pll->base + PLL_CFG1);
> > + divff = FIELD_GET(PLL_FRAC_DIV_MASK, val);
> > + divfi = (val & PLL_INT_DIV_MASK);
>
> Nitpick: Drop useless parenthesis please.
>
Removed in the next version.
> > +
> > + temp64 = (u64)parent_rate * 8;
> > + temp64 *= divff;
> > + do_div(temp64, PLL_FRAC_DENOM);
> > + temp64 /= divq;
> > +
> > + return parent_rate * 8 * (divfi + 1) / divq + (unsigned long)temp64;
> > +}
> > +
> > +static long clk_pll_round_rate(struct clk_hw *hw, unsigned long rate,
> > + unsigned long *prate)
> > +{
> > + unsigned long parent_rate = *prate;
> > + u32 divff, divfi;
> > + u64 temp64;
> > +
> > + parent_rate *= 8;
>
> And parent_rate can't overflow if it's a u32? Maybe it could be a u64 so
> that we don't need casting later on in this function.
>
Fixed in the next version.
> > + rate *= 2;
> > + divfi = rate / parent_rate;
> > + temp64 = (u64)(rate - divfi * parent_rate);
> > + temp64 *= PLL_FRAC_DENOM;
> > + do_div(temp64, parent_rate);
> > + divff = temp64;
> > +
> > + temp64 = (u64)parent_rate;
> > + temp64 *= divff;
> > + do_div(temp64, PLL_FRAC_DENOM);
> > +
> > + return (parent_rate * divfi + (unsigned long)temp64) / 2;
> > +}
> > +
> > +/*
> > + * To simplify the clock calculation, we can keep the 'PLL_OUTPUT_VAL' at zero
> > + * (means the PLL output will be divided by 2). So the PLL output can use
> > + * the below formula:
> > + * pllout = parent_rate * 8 / 2 * DIVF_VAL;
> > + * where DIVF_VAL = 1 + DIVFI + DIVFF / 2^24.
> > + */
> > +static int clk_pll_set_rate(struct clk_hw *hw, unsigned long rate,
> > + unsigned long parent_rate)
> > +{
> > + struct clk_frac_pll *pll = to_clk_frac_pll(hw);
> > + u32 val, divfi, divff;
> > + u64 temp64;
> > + int ret;
> > +
> > + parent_rate *= 8;
> > + rate *= 2;
> > + divfi = rate / parent_rate;
> > + temp64 = (u64) (rate - divfi * parent_rate);
> > + temp64 *= PLL_FRAC_DENOM;
> > + do_div(temp64, parent_rate);
> > + divff = temp64;
> > +
> > + val = readl_relaxed(pll->base + PLL_CFG1);
> > + val &= ~(PLL_FRAC_DIV_MASK | PLL_INT_DIV_MASK);
> > + val |= ((divff << 7) | (divfi - 1));
>
> Nitpick: Drop the extra parenthesis please.
>
Removed in the next version.
> > + writel_relaxed(val, pll->base + PLL_CFG1);
> > +
> > + val = readl_relaxed(pll->base + PLL_CFG0);
> > + val &= ~0x1f;
> > + writel_relaxed(val, pll->base + PLL_CFG0);
> > +
> > + /* Set the NEV_DIV_VAL to reload the DIVFI and DIVFF */
> > + val = readl_relaxed(pll->base + PLL_CFG0);
> > + val |= PLL_NEWDIV_VAL;
> > + writel_relaxed(val, pll->base + PLL_CFG0);
> > +
> > + ret = clk_wait_ack(pll);
> > +
> > + /* clear the NEV_DIV_VAL */
> > + val = readl_relaxed(pll->base + PLL_CFG0);
> > + val &= ~PLL_NEWDIV_VAL;
> > + writel_relaxed(val, pll->base + PLL_CFG0);
> > +
> > + return ret;
> > +}
> > +
> > +static const struct clk_ops clk_frac_pll_ops = {
> > + .prepare = clk_pll_prepare,
> > + .unprepare = clk_pll_unprepare,
> > + .is_prepared = clk_pll_is_prepared,
> > + .recalc_rate = clk_pll_recalc_rate,
> > + .round_rate = clk_pll_round_rate,
> > + .set_rate = clk_pll_set_rate,
> > +};
> > +
> > +struct clk *imx_clk_frac_pll(const char *name, const char *parent_name,
> > + void __iomem *base)
> > +{
> > + struct clk_init_data init;
> > + struct clk_frac_pll *pll;
> > + struct clk *clk;
> > +
> > + pll = kzalloc(sizeof(*pll), GFP_KERNEL);
> > + if (!pll)
> > + return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM);
> > +
> > + pll->base = base;
> > + init.name = name;
> > + init.ops = &clk_frac_pll_ops;
> > + init.flags = 0;
> > + init.parent_names = &parent_name;
> > + init.num_parents = 1;
> > +
> > + pll->hw.init = &init;
> > +
> > + clk = clk_register(NULL, &pll->hw);
>
> clk_hw based please.
>
Fixed in the next version.
> > + if (IS_ERR(clk))
> > + kfree(pll);
> > +
> > + return clk;
> > +}
--
Powered by blists - more mailing lists