linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH] clk: sunxi-ng: sun4i: Use CLK_SET_RATE

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]

Date:   Mon, 11 Feb 2019 14:35:52 +0000
From:   Priit Laes <plaes@...es.org>
To:     Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@...tlin.com>
Cc:     Chen-Yu Tsai <wens@...e.org>,
        Michael Turquette <mturquette@...libre.com>,
        Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>,
        linux-arm-kernel <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        linux-clk <linux-clk@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Jernej Skrabec <jernej.skrabec@...l.net>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] clk: sunxi-ng: sun4i: Use CLK_SET_RATE_PARENT for
 mmc2 clock

On Wed, Feb 06, 2019 at 04:52:27PM +0100, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On Wed, Feb 06, 2019 at 10:03:09AM +0000, Priit Laes wrote:
> > > > I'm concerned for other users of the PLL-PERIPH clock. AFAIK
> > > > all of them, except the HRTIMER, expect the clock rate to stay
> > > > the same and not change underneath them. And SATA expects it to
> > > > be at 600 MHz, as the datasheet says. And while it may not directly
> > > > apply to the LIME2, eMMC on newer SoCs / boards run at the slightly
> > > > reduced rate of 50 MHz just fine.
> > > > 
> > > > In the commit in question, clocks without CLK_SET_RATE_PARENT
> > > > should be using the old code (now in the if conditional block),
> > > > i.e. the behavior should not have changed.
> > > > 
> > > > I don't think this actually "fixes" whatever bug was introduced,
> > > > but only papers over the issue, and possible introduces further
> > > > issues for other users.
> > > 
> > > You're right, I've overlooked that it was pll-periph being
> > > affected. I've dropped it for now.
> > 
> > Any ideas what could be done. I currently have no time to debug it,
> > but it affects existing systems.
> 
> I can't find what would change with that commit either if the flag
> isn't set, so looking at the register state before and after that
> commit would help I guess?

Register dump without the patch:

$ busybox devmem 0x01c20090
0x0250030E

pll-ddr-base     2 2 0   768000000          0     0  50000
   pll-ddr-other 1 1 0   768000000          0     0  50000
      mmc2       3 3 0    51200000          0     0  50000

Register dump with patch applied, booted from mmc0 and after mounting emmc:

$ busybox devmem 0x01c20090
0x8140020B

pll-periph-base  3 3 0  1200000000          0     0  50000
   pll-periph    6 6 0   600000000          0     0  50000
      mmc2       3 3 0    50000000          0     0  50000



> 
> Maxime
> 
> -- 
> Maxime Ripard, Bootlin
> Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
> https://bootlin.com