linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 08/13] clk: qcom: hfpll: CLK_IGNORE

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: <20190117063312.GE25498@builder>
Date:   Wed, 16 Jan 2019 22:33:12 -0800
From:   Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@...aro.org>
To:     Jorge Ramirez-Ortiz <jorge.ramirez-ortiz@...aro.org>
Cc:     robh+dt@...nel.org, mark.rutland@....com, andy.gross@...aro.org,
        david.brown@...aro.org, sboyd@...nel.org, will.deacon@....com,
        mturquette@...libre.com, jassisinghbrar@...il.com,
        vkoul@...nel.org, niklas.cassel@...aro.org, sibis@...eaurora.org,
        georgi.djakov@...aro.org, arnd@...db.de,
        horms+renesas@...ge.net.au, heiko@...ech.de,
        enric.balletbo@...labora.com, jagan@...rulasolutions.com,
        olof@...om.net, amit.kucheria@...aro.org,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-clk@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 08/13] clk: qcom: hfpll: CLK_IGNORE_UNUSED

On Mon 17 Dec 01:46 PST 2018, Jorge Ramirez-Ortiz wrote:

> When COMMON_CLK_DISABLED_UNUSED is set, in an effort to save power and
> to keep the software model of the clock in line with reality, the
> framework transverses the clock tree and disables those clocks that
> were enabled by the firmware but have not been enabled by any device
> driver.
> 
> If CPUFREQ is enabled, early during the system boot, it might attempt
> to change the CPU frequency ("set_rate"). If the HFPLL is selected as
> a provider, it will then change the rate for this clock.
> 
> As boot continues, clk_disable_unused_subtree will run. Since it wont
> find a valid counter (enable_count) for a clock that is actually
> enabled it will attempt to disable it which will cause the CPU to
> stop. Notice that in this driver, calls to check whether the clock is
> enabled are routed via the is_enabled callback which queries the
> hardware.
> 

With the CPUFREQ referencing the CPU clock driver, that has decided to
run off this clock, why is it not refcounted?

Regards,
Bjorn

> The following commit, rather than marking the clock critical and
> forcing the clock to be always enabled, addresses the above scenario
> making sure the clock is not disabled but it continues to rely on the
> firmware to enable the clock.
> 
> Co-developed-by: Niklas Cassel <niklas.cassel@...aro.org>
> Signed-off-by: Niklas Cassel <niklas.cassel@...aro.org>
> Signed-off-by: Jorge Ramirez-Ortiz <jorge.ramirez-ortiz@...aro.org>
> ---
>  drivers/clk/qcom/hfpll.c | 1 +
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/clk/qcom/hfpll.c b/drivers/clk/qcom/hfpll.c
> index 0ffed0d..9d92f5d 100644
> --- a/drivers/clk/qcom/hfpll.c
> +++ b/drivers/clk/qcom/hfpll.c
> @@ -58,6 +58,7 @@ static int qcom_hfpll_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>  		.parent_names = (const char *[]){ "xo" },
>  		.num_parents = 1,
>  		.ops = &clk_ops_hfpll,
> +		.flags = CLK_IGNORE_UNUSED,
>  	};
>  
>  	h = devm_kzalloc(dev, sizeof(*h), GFP_KERNEL);
> -- 
> 2.7.4
>