linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 1/3] clk: qcom: gdsc: Fix the handling of PWRSTS

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: <657820a2-f945-ac6a-8a99-47ee511181d8@collabora.com>
Date:   Tue, 27 Sep 2022 13:57:59 +0200
From:   AngeloGioacchino Del Regno 
        <angelogioacchino.delregno@...labora.com>
To:     Bjorn Andersson <andersson@...nel.org>
Cc:     Rajendra Nayak <quic_rjendra@...cinc.com>, agross@...nel.org,
        konrad.dybcio@...ainline.org, mturquette@...libre.com,
        sboyd@...nel.org, mka@...omium.org, linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, johan+linaro@...nel.org,
        quic_kriskura@...cinc.com, dianders@...omium.org,
        linux-clk@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/3] clk: qcom: gdsc: Fix the handling of PWRSTS_RET
 support

Il 27/09/22 05:02, Bjorn Andersson ha scritto:
> On Tue, Sep 20, 2022 at 02:39:21PM +0200, AngeloGioacchino Del Regno wrote:
>> Il 20/09/22 13:15, Rajendra Nayak ha scritto:
>>> GDSCs cannot be transitioned into a Retention state in SW.
>>> When either the RETAIN_MEM bit, or both the RETAIN_MEM and
>>> RETAIN_PERIPH bits are set, and the GDSC is left ON, the HW
>>> takes care of retaining the memory/logic for the domain when
>>> the parent domain transitions to power collapse/power off state.
>>>
>>> On some platforms where the parent domains lowest power state
>>> itself is Retention, just leaving the GDSC in ON (without any
>>> RETAIN_MEM/RETAIN_PERIPH bits being set) will also transition
>>> it to Retention.
>>>
>>> The existing logic handling the PWRSTS_RET seems to set the
>>> RETAIN_MEM/RETAIN_PERIPH bits if the cxcs offsets are specified
>>> but then explicitly turns the GDSC OFF as part of _gdsc_disable().
>>> Fix that by leaving the GDSC in ON state.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Rajendra Nayak <quic_rjendra@...cinc.com>
>>> Cc: AngeloGioacchino Del Regno <angelogioacchino.delregno@...labora.com>
>>> ---
>>> v3:
>>> Updated changelog
>>>
>>> There are a few existing users of PWRSTS_RET and I am not
>>> sure if they would be impacted with this change
>>>
>>> 1. mdss_gdsc in mmcc-msm8974.c, I am expecting that the
>>> gdsc is actually transitioning to OFF and might be left
>>> ON as part of this change, atleast till we hit system wide
>>> low power state.
>>> If we really leak more power because of this
>>> change, the right thing to do would be to update .pwrsts for
>>> mdss_gdsc to PWRSTS_OFF_ON instead of PWRSTS_RET_ON
>>> I dont have a msm8974 hardware, so if anyone who has can report
>>> any issues I can take a look further on how to fix it.
>>
>> I think that the safest option is to add a PWRSTS_RET_HW_CTRL flag (or similar),
>> used for the specific cases of SC7180 and SC7280 (and possibly others) where the
>> GDSC is automatically transitioned to a Retention state by HW control, with no
>> required software (kernel driver) intervention.
>>
>>>
>>> 2. gpu_gx_gdsc in gpucc-msm8998.c and
>>>      gpu_gx_gdsc in gpucc-sdm660.c
>>> Both of these seem to add support for 3 power state
>>> OFF, RET and ON, however I dont see any logic in gdsc
>>> driver to handle 3 different power states.
>>> So I am expecting that these are infact just transitioning
>>> between ON and OFF and RET state is never really used.
>>> The ideal fix for them would be to just update their resp.
>>> .pwrsts to PWRSTS_OFF_ON only.
>>
>> static int gdsc_init(struct gdsc *sc)
>> {
>>
>> 	...
>>
>> 	if (on || (sc->pwrsts & PWRSTS_RET))
>> 		gdsc_force_mem_on(sc);
>> 	else
>> 		gdsc_clear_mem_on(sc);
>>
>> 	...
>> }
>>
>> On MSM8998 and SDM630/636/660, we're reaching that point with a GDSC that is
>> left OFF from the bootloader, but we want (at least for 630/660) memretain
>> without periph-retain: this is required to make the hypervisor happy.
>>
> 
> Forgive me Angelo, but can you please help me understand your concern
> here?
> 
> Are yous saying that the valid states for 8998/660 are PWRSTS_OFF_ON,
> but you also want gdsc_force_mem_on() - with NO_RET_PERIPH?
> 
> 
> It seems to me that as Rajendra's patch is written, the gpu_gx_gdsc
> won't be affected, because pwrsts != PWRSTS_RET. So this is a question
> about the validity of fixing the pwrsts in gpucc-msm8998, rather than
> about this patch in itself?
> 

Hello Bjorn,

my replies were related to this part of the commit description:

 >>> The ideal fix for them would be to just update their resp.
 >>> .pwrsts to PWRSTS_OFF_ON only.

By updating MSM8998 and SDM660's gpu_gx_gdsc to remove PWRSTS_RET, the gdsc_init()
flow will change, as in the aforementioned branch, `on` will be false, hence,
we will clear RETAIN_MEM during the gpu_gx_gdsc initialization, producing side
effects.
I agree on the fact that PWRSTS_RET was *not* handled correctly before this commit
and this alone will not produce any side effects on MSM8998, nor SDM660.

So yes, this is a discussion about the validity of fixing the pwrsts in
gpucc-msm8998 and in gpucc-sdm660.c.

Cheers,
Angelo