| 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
| ||
|
Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2022 23:49:02 +0530
From: Vijaya Krishna Nivarthi <quic_vnivarth@...cinc.com>
To: Doug Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>
CC: Andy Gross <agross@...nel.org>,
Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@...aro.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@...nel.org>,
linux-arm-msm <linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-serial@...r.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <quic_msavaliy@...cinc.com>,
Matthias Kaehlcke <mka@...omium.org>,
"Stephen Boyd" <swboyd@...omium.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tty: serial: qcom-geni-serial: minor fixes to
get_clk_div_rate()
Hi,
On 6/4/2022 12:10 AM, Doug Anderson wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Fri, Jun 3, 2022 at 10:43 AM Vijaya Krishna Nivarthi
> <quic_vnivarth@...cinc.com> wrote:
>>
>> Ah, or I guess what you're saying is that the table historically
>> contained "rounded" rates but that clk_round_rate() isn't returning
>> nice round rates. OK, but if we truly want to support an inexact
>> match, you'd want to pick the rate that reduces the error, not just
>> pick the first one. In other words, something like this (untested):
>>
>> freq = clk_round_rate(clk, mult);
>> diff = abs(((long)mult - freq) / div);
>> if (diff < best_diff) {
>> best_diff = diff;
>> ser_clk = freq;
>> best_div = div;
>> }
>> I am not sure if its required that freq is a multiple of best_div now
>> that we don't have a multiple of desired_clk anyway.
> How about just this (untested):
>
> freq = clk_round_rate(clk, mult);
> candidate_div = max(1, DIV_ROUND_CLOSEST(freq, desired_clk));
> candidate_freq = freq / candidate_div;
> diff = abs((long)desired_clk - candidate_freq);
> if (diff < best_diff) {
> best_diff = diff;
> ser_clk = freq;
> best_div = candidate_div;
> }
I am afraid this still doesn't guarantee that ser_clk is a multiple of
best_div
I tested it with a function simulates clk_round_rate.
static unsigned long clk_round_rate_test(struct clk *clk, unsigned long
in_freq)
{
unsigned long root_freq[6] = {105, 204, 303, 402, 501, 602};
int i;
for (i = 0; i < 6; i++) {
if (root_freq[i] >= in_freq)
return root_freq[i];
}
return root_freq[6];
}
{
unsigned long ser_clk;
unsigned long desired_clk;
unsigned long freq;
int div_round_closest;
unsigned long div;
unsigned long mult;
unsigned long candidate_div, candidate_freq;
unsigned long diff, best_diff, best_div;
unsigned long one;
desired_clk = 100;
one = 1;
best_diff = ULONG_MAX;
pr_err("\ndesired_clk-%d\n", desired_clk);
for (div = 1; div <= 10; div++) {
mult = div * desired_clk;
freq = clk_round_rate_test(clk, mult);
div_round_closest = DIV_ROUND_CLOSEST(freq, desired_clk);
candidate_div = max(one, (unsigned long)div_round_closest);
candidate_freq = freq / candidate_div;
diff = abs((long)desired_clk - candidate_freq);
pr_err("div-%d, mult-%d, freq-%d, div_round_closest-%d,
candidate_div-%d, candidate_freq-%d, diff-%d\n",
div, mult, freq, div_round_closest, candidate_div,
candidate_freq, diff);
if (diff < best_diff) {
pr_err("This is best so far\n");
best_diff = diff;
ser_clk = freq;
best_div = candidate_div;
}
}
pr_err("\nbest_diff-%d, ser_clk-%d, best_div-%d\n",
best_diff, ser_clk, best_div);
}
And here is the output
[ 17.835167] desired_clk-100
[ 17.839567] div-1, mult-100, freq-105, div_round_closest-1,
candidate_div-1, candidate_freq-105, diff-5
[ 17.849220] This is best so far
[ 17.852458] div-2, mult-200, freq-204, div_round_closest-2,
candidate_div-2, candidate_freq-102, diff-2
[ 17.862104] This is best so far
[ 17.865345] div-3, mult-300, freq-303, div_round_closest-3,
candidate_div-3, candidate_freq-101, diff-1
[ 17.874995] This is best so far
[ 17.878237] div-4, mult-400, freq-402, div_round_closest-4,
candidate_div-4, candidate_freq-100, diff-0
[ 17.887882] This is best so far
[ 17.891118] div-5, mult-500, freq-501, div_round_closest-5,
candidate_div-5, candidate_freq-100, diff-0
[ 17.900770] div-6, mult-600, freq-602, div_round_closest-6,
candidate_div-6, candidate_freq-100, diff-0
[ 17.910415] div-7, mult-700, freq-602, div_round_closest-6,
candidate_div-6, candidate_freq-100, diff-0
[ 17.920057] div-8, mult-800, freq-602, div_round_closest-6,
candidate_div-6, candidate_freq-100, diff-0
[ 17.929703] div-9, mult-900, freq-602, div_round_closest-6,
candidate_div-6, candidate_freq-100, diff-0
[ 17.939353] div-10, mult-1000, freq-602, div_round_closest-6,
candidate_div-6, candidate_freq-100, diff-0
[ 17.949181]
[ 17.949181] best_diff-0, ser_clk-402, best_div-4
Please note that we go past cases when we have an divider that can
exactly divide the frequency(105/1, 204/2, 303/3) and end up with one
that doesn't.
It seems like we need to run through all dividers to find one that can
divide output freq from clk_round_rate and among those choose smallest
delta.
In regular bootup 2nd loop was required only for 51200000. For others
1843200, 153600, 1st loop worked fine.
Thank you.
>
> Here:
>
> freq: a freq we can definitely make
>
> candidate_div: the best number to divide freq by to get the desired clock.
>
> candidate_freq: the frequency we'll end up if we divide freq by
> candidate_div. We want this to be close to desired_clk.
>
> diff: how far away the candidate_freq is away from what we want.
>
> best_diff: how far away the best candidate was from what we wanted.
>
> ser_clk: What we should pass to clk_set_rate() to get the best candidate.
>
> best_div: What we should use as a divider to get the best candidate.
>
>
> -Doug
Powered by blists - more mailing lists