linux-kernel - [PATCH v1 7/7] drm/vc4: Make sure we don't end up with a core clock too high

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: <20220815-rpi-fix-4k-60-v1-7-c52bd642f7c6@cerno.tech>
Date:   Mon, 15 Aug 2022 17:31:29 +0200
From:   Maxime Ripard <maxime@...no.tech>
To:     Michael Turquette <mturquette@...libre.com>,
        Ray Jui <rjui@...adcom.com>,
        Broadcom internal kernel review list 
        <bcm-kernel-feedback-list@...adcom.com>,
        Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
        David Airlie <airlied@...ux.ie>,
        Daniel Vetter <daniel@...ll.ch>,
        Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>,
        Scott Branden <sbranden@...adcom.com>,
        Maxime Ripard <mripard@...nel.org>,
        Emma Anholt <emma@...olt.net>
Cc:     Maxime Ripard <maxime@...no.tech>,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-rpi-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org, Dom Cobley <popcornmix@...il.com>,
        linux-clk@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH v1 7/7] drm/vc4: Make sure we don't end up with a core clock too high

Following the clock rate range improvements to the clock framework,
trying to set a disjoint range on a clock will now result in an error.

Thus, we can't set a minimum rate higher than the maximum reported by
the firmware, or clk_set_min_rate() will fail.

Thus we need to clamp the rate we are about to ask for to the maximum
rate possible on that clock.

Signed-off-by: Maxime Ripard <maxime@...no.tech>

diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/vc4/vc4_kms.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/vc4/vc4_kms.c
index b45dcdfd7306..4794e7235bb0 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/vc4/vc4_kms.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/vc4/vc4_kms.c
@@ -22,6 +22,8 @@
 #include <drm/drm_probe_helper.h>
 #include <drm/drm_vblank.h>
 
+#include <soc/bcm2835/raspberrypi-clocks.h>
+
 #include "vc4_drv.h"
 #include "vc4_regs.h"
 
@@ -354,6 +356,7 @@ static void vc4_atomic_commit_tail(struct drm_atomic_state *state)
 	struct vc4_hvs_state *new_hvs_state;
 	struct drm_crtc *crtc;
 	struct vc4_hvs_state *old_hvs_state;
+	unsigned long max_clock_rate;
 	unsigned int channel;
 	int i;
 
@@ -394,11 +397,12 @@ static void vc4_atomic_commit_tail(struct drm_atomic_state *state)
 		old_hvs_state->fifo_state[channel].pending_commit = NULL;
 	}
 
+	max_clock_rate = rpi_firmware_clk_get_max_rate(hvs->core_clk);
 	if (vc4->is_vc5) {
 		unsigned long state_rate = max(old_hvs_state->core_clock_rate,
 					       new_hvs_state->core_clock_rate);
-		unsigned long core_rate = max_t(unsigned long,
-						500000000, state_rate);
+		unsigned long core_rate = clamp_t(unsigned long, state_rate,
+						  500000000, max_clock_rate);
 
 		drm_dbg(dev, "Raising the core clock at %lu Hz\n", core_rate);
 
@@ -432,14 +436,17 @@ static void vc4_atomic_commit_tail(struct drm_atomic_state *state)
 	drm_atomic_helper_cleanup_planes(dev, state);
 
 	if (vc4->is_vc5) {
-		drm_dbg(dev, "Running the core clock at %lu Hz\n",
-			new_hvs_state->core_clock_rate);
+		unsigned long core_rate = min_t(unsigned long,
+					       max_clock_rate,
+					       new_hvs_state->core_clock_rate);
+
+		drm_dbg(dev, "Running the core clock at %lu Hz\n", core_rate);
 
 		/*
 		 * Request a clock rate based on the current HVS
 		 * requirements.
 		 */
-		WARN_ON(clk_set_min_rate(hvs->core_clk, new_hvs_state->core_clock_rate));
+		WARN_ON(clk_set_min_rate(hvs->core_clk, core_rate));
 
 		drm_dbg(dev, "Core clock actual rate: %lu Hz\n",
 			clk_get_rate(hvs->core_clk));

-- 
b4 0.10.0-dev-a76f5