linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH] can: flexcan: fix timeout when set small bitrate

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <DB7PR04MB46181BB58A06791458236D10E6910@DB7PR04MB4618.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com>
Date:   Thu, 31 Jan 2019 09:18:25 +0000
From:   Joakim Zhang <qiangqing.zhang@....com>
To:     Marc Kleine-Budde <mkl@...gutronix.de>,
        "linux-can@...r.kernel.org" <linux-can@...r.kernel.org>
CC:     "wg@...ndegger.com" <wg@...ndegger.com>,
        "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        dl-linux-imx <linux-imx@....com>,
        Aisheng Dong <aisheng.dong@....com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH] can: flexcan: fix timeout when set small bitrate


Hi Marc,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Marc Kleine-Budde <mkl@...gutronix.de>
> Sent: 2019年1月31日 17:12
> To: Joakim Zhang <qiangqing.zhang@....com>; linux-can@...r.kernel.org
> Cc: wg@...ndegger.com; netdev@...r.kernel.org;
> linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org; dl-linux-imx <linux-imx@....com>; Aisheng
> Dong <aisheng.dong@....com>
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] can: flexcan: fix timeout when set small bitrate
> 
> On 1/31/19 9:48 AM, Joakim Zhang wrote:
> >> Which SoC are you using? Which clock rate has the flexcan IP core?
> >
> >   We tested on i.MX6 series boards and all met this issue. And ipg clock rate
> is 66MHZ, per clock rate is 30MHZ.
> 
> ok
> 
> >
> >>> It is caused by calling of flexcan_chip_unfreeze() timeout.
> >>>
> >>> Originally the code is using usleep_range(10, 20) for unfreeze
> >>> operation, but the patch (8badd65 can: flexcan: avoid calling
> >>> usleep_range from interrupt context) changed it into udelay(10)
> >>> which is only a half delay of before, there're also some other delay
> changes.
> >>>
> >>> After only changed unfreeze delay back to udelay(20), the issue is gone.
> >>> So other timeout values are kept the same as 8badd65 changed.
> >>
> >> Can you change FLEXCAN_TIMEOUT_US instead?
> >
> >   Of course, we can change FLEXCAN_TIMEOUT_US to 100, but this will
> extend the time of enable/disable/softreset.
> > Which method do you think is better?
> 
> If you double to FLEXCAN_TIMEOUT_US to 100, the loops in question will spin
> at maximum the double time. But the loops are left as soon as the condition is
> satisfied.
> 
> It will fix your problem with the 10 kbit/s bitrate. But if there is some kind of
> problem with the IP core it will still fail, it just takes double amount of time
> (100 µs + overhead) until the function returns.
> 
> I don't see any harm in looping longer:
> - The previous good case is unchanged.
> - The error case takes double amount of time.
> - Your problem is hopefully fixed.

Thanks for your explanation, I will cook a patch then resend.

Best Regards,
Joakim Zhang
> Marc
> 
> --
> Pengutronix e.K.                  | Marc Kleine-Budde           |
> Industrial Linux Solutions        | Phone: +49-231-2826-924     |
> Vertretung West/Dortmund          | Fax:   +49-5121-206917-5555 |
> Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686  | http://www.pengutronix.de   |