linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 2/5] mmc: sdhci: always obey programmable clock config in preset value

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: <38e93996-d815-1b62-8d93-8b9bbed384a6@intel.com>
Date:   Thu, 12 Aug 2021 12:54:23 +0300
From:   Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>
To:     Michał Mirosław <mirq-linux@...e.qmqm.pl>
Cc:     Kevin Liu <kliu5@...vell.com>,
        Michal Simek <michal.simek@...inx.com>,
        Suneel Garapati <suneel.garapati@...inx.com>,
        Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>,
        linux-mmc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Al Cooper <alcooperx@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/5] mmc: sdhci: always obey programmable clock config
 in preset value

On 7/08/21 5:05 pm, Michał Mirosław wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 04, 2021 at 01:52:21PM +0300, Adrian Hunter wrote:
>> On 25/07/21 12:20 pm, Michał Mirosław wrote:
>>> When host controller uses programmable clock presets but doesn't
>>> advertise programmable clock support, we can only guess what frequency
>>> it generates. Let's at least return correct SDHCI_PROG_CLOCK_MODE bit
>>> value in this case.
>> If the preset value doesn't make sense, why use it at all?
> 
> If I understand the spec correctly, when the preset value is used the
> values in Clock Control register are ignored by the module and so the
> module can also actually use a different clock source than the ones
> available to the driver directly.

I don't remember, does it say that in the spec?

>                                   So either way the driver can't be
> sure of the exact frequencu used. This is a cleanup to remove a case
> when the code ignores a bit's value based on other unspecified assumptions.

Is this fixing a real issue?  It seems like switching from one undefined
scenario to another.  Are either of which known to have ever happened?

Perhaps we should leave it as is.

> 
> [...]
>>> --- a/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci.c
>>> @@ -1859,11 +1859,14 @@ u16 sdhci_calc_clk(struct sdhci_host *host, unsigned int clock,
>>>  
>>>  			pre_val = sdhci_get_preset_value(host);
>>>  			div = FIELD_GET(SDHCI_PRESET_SDCLK_FREQ_MASK, pre_val);
>>> -			if (host->clk_mul &&
>>> -				(pre_val & SDHCI_PRESET_CLKGEN_SEL)) {
>>> +			if (pre_val & SDHCI_PRESET_CLKGEN_SEL) {
>>>  				clk = SDHCI_PROG_CLOCK_MODE;
>>>  				real_div = div + 1;
>>>  				clk_mul = host->clk_mul;
>>> +				if (!clk_mul) {
>>> +					/* The clock frequency is unknown. Assume undivided base. */
>>> +					clk_mul = 1;
>>> +				}
>>>  			} else {
>>>  				real_div = max_t(int, 1, div << 1);
>>>  			}