linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/3] spi: spi-geni-qcom: Use the FIFO even more

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: <20200913031255.GR3715@yoga>
Date:   Sat, 12 Sep 2020 22:12:55 -0500
From:   Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@...aro.org>
To:     Doug Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>
Cc:     Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
        Akash Asthana <akashast@...eaurora.org>,
        Stephen Boyd <swboyd@...omium.org>,
        Andy Gross <agross@...nel.org>,
        linux-arm-msm <linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-spi <linux-spi@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] spi: spi-geni-qcom: Use the FIFO even more

On Sat 12 Sep 20:11 CDT 2020, Doug Anderson wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> On Sat, Sep 12, 2020 at 3:53 PM Bjorn Andersson
> <bjorn.andersson@...aro.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Sat 12 Sep 16:07 CDT 2020, Douglas Anderson wrote:
> >
> > > In commit 902481a78ee4 ("spi: spi-geni-qcom: Actually use our FIFO") I
> > > explained that the maximum size we could program the FIFO was
> > > "mas->tx_fifo_depth - 3" but that I chose "mas->tx_fifo_depth()"
> > > because I was worried about decreased bandwidth.
> > >
> > > Since that time:
> > > * All the interconnect patches have landed, making things run at the
> > >   proper speed.
> > > * I've done more measurements.
> > >
> > > This lets me confirm that there's really no downside of using the FIFO
> > > more.  Specifically I did "flashrom -p ec -r /tmp/foo.bin" on a
> > > Chromebook and averaged over several runs.
> >
> > Wouldn't there be a downside in the form of setting the watermark that
> > close to the full FIFO we have less room for being late handling the
> > interrupt? Or is there some mechanism involved that will prevent
> > the FIFO from being overrun?
> 
> Yeah, I had that worry too, but, as described in 902481a78ee4 ("spi:
> spi-geni-qcom: Actually use our FIFO"), it doesn't seem to be a
> problem.  From that commit: "We are the SPI master, so it makes sense
> that there would be no problems with overruns, the master should just
> stop clocking."
> 

Actually read the message of the linked commit now. I share your view
that this indicates that the controller does something wrt the clocking
to handle this case.

Change itself looks good, so:

Reviewed-by: Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@...aro.org>

Regards,
Bjorn