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  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, 12 May 2020 17:39:40 -0700
From:   Guru Das Srinagesh <gurus@...eaurora.org>
To:     linux-pwm@...r.kernel.org,
        Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>,
        Uwe Kleine-K├Ânig 
        <u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>
Cc:     Subbaraman Narayanamurthy <subbaram@...eaurora.org>,
        David Collins <collinsd@...eaurora.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>,
        Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>,
        Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
        Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>,
        Daniel Thompson <daniel.thompson@...aro.org>,
        Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        Guru Das Srinagesh <gurus@...eaurora.org>,
        Shawn Guo <shawnguo@...nel.org>,
        Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@...gutronix.de>,
        Pengutronix Kernel Team <kernel@...gutronix.de>,
        Fabio Estevam <festevam@...il.com>,
        NXP Linux Team <linux-imx@....com>
Subject: [RESEND PATCH v14 06/11] pwm: imx27: Use 64-bit division macro and function

Since the PWM framework is switching struct pwm_state.period's
datatype to u64, prepare for this transition by using
DIV_ROUND_UP_ULL to handle a 64-bit dividend, and div64_u64 to handle a
64-bit divisor.

Also handle a possible overflow in the calculation of period_cycles when
both clk_rate and period are large numbers. This logic was unit-tested
out by calculating period_cycles using both the existing logic and the
proposed one, and the results are as below.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 clk_rate            period           existing            proposed
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
1000000000   18446744073709551615    18446744072    18446744073000000000
                   (U64_MAX)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
1000000000        4294967291         4294967291         4294967291
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Overflow occurs in the first case with the existing logic, whereas the
proposed logic handles it better, sacrificing some precision in a best-effort
attempt to handle overflow. As for the second case where there are
more typical values of period, the proposed logic handles that correctly
too.

Cc: Shawn Guo <shawnguo@...nel.org>
Cc: Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@...gutronix.de>
Cc: Pengutronix Kernel Team <kernel@...gutronix.de>
Cc: Fabio Estevam <festevam@...il.com>
Cc: NXP Linux Team <linux-imx@....com>
Signed-off-by: Guru Das Srinagesh <gurus@...eaurora.org>
---
 drivers/pwm/pwm-imx27.c | 53 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------
 1 file changed, 45 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/pwm/pwm-imx27.c b/drivers/pwm/pwm-imx27.c
index a6e40d4..164cb65 100644
--- a/drivers/pwm/pwm-imx27.c
+++ b/drivers/pwm/pwm-imx27.c
@@ -203,7 +203,7 @@ static void pwm_imx27_wait_fifo_slot(struct pwm_chip *chip,
 	sr = readl(imx->mmio_base + MX3_PWMSR);
 	fifoav = FIELD_GET(MX3_PWMSR_FIFOAV, sr);
 	if (fifoav == MX3_PWMSR_FIFOAV_4WORDS) {
-		period_ms = DIV_ROUND_UP(pwm_get_period(pwm),
+		period_ms = DIV_ROUND_UP_ULL(pwm_get_period(pwm),
 					 NSEC_PER_MSEC);
 		msleep(period_ms);
 
@@ -213,6 +213,45 @@ static void pwm_imx27_wait_fifo_slot(struct pwm_chip *chip,
 	}
 }
 
+static int pwm_imx27_calc_period_cycles(const struct pwm_state *state,
+					unsigned long clk_rate,
+					unsigned long *period_cycles)
+{
+	u64 c = 0, c1, c2;
+
+	c1 = clk_rate;
+	c2 = state->period;
+	if (c2 > c1) {
+		c2 = c1;
+		c1 = state->period;
+	}
+
+	if (!c1 || !c2) {
+		pr_err("clk rate and period should be nonzero\n");
+		return -EINVAL;
+	}
+
+	if (c2 <= div64_u64(U64_MAX, c1)) {
+		c = c1 * c2;
+		do_div(c, 1000000000);
+	} else if (c2 <= div64_u64(U64_MAX, div64_u64(c1, 1000))) {
+		do_div(c1, 1000);
+		c = c1 * c2;
+		do_div(c, 1000000);
+	} else if (c2 <= div64_u64(U64_MAX, div64_u64(c1, 1000000))) {
+		do_div(c1, 1000000);
+		c = c1 * c2;
+		do_div(c, 1000);
+	} else if (c2 <= div64_u64(U64_MAX, div64_u64(c1, 1000000000))) {
+		do_div(c1, 1000000000);
+		c = c1 * c2;
+	}
+
+	*period_cycles = c;
+
+	return 0;
+}
+
 static int pwm_imx27_apply(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm,
 			   const struct pwm_state *state)
 {
@@ -225,18 +264,16 @@ static int pwm_imx27_apply(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm,
 
 	pwm_get_state(pwm, &cstate);
 
-	c = clk_get_rate(imx->clk_per);
-	c *= state->period;
-
-	do_div(c, 1000000000);
-	period_cycles = c;
+	ret = pwm_imx27_calc_period_cycles(state, clk_get_rate(imx->clk_per),
+					   &period_cycles);
+	if (ret)
+		return ret;
 
 	prescale = period_cycles / 0x10000 + 1;
 
 	period_cycles /= prescale;
 	c = (unsigned long long)period_cycles * state->duty_cycle;
-	do_div(c, state->period);
-	duty_cycles = c;
+	duty_cycles = div64_u64(c, state->period);
 
 	/*
 	 * according to imx pwm RM, the real period value should be PERIOD
-- 
The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum,
a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project

Powered by blists - more mailing lists