linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] mmc: sdhci-of-esdhc: limit the SDHC clock frequency

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: <52030ce1-5781-cd62-e0bc-b70a011a024b@intel.com>
Date:   Tue, 29 Nov 2022 10:04:50 +0200
From:   Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>
To:     andy.tang@....com, ulf.hansson@...aro.org
Cc:     linux-mmc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mmc: sdhci-of-esdhc: limit the SDHC clock frequency

On 24/11/22 08:46, andy.tang@....com wrote:
> From: Yuantian Tang <andy.tang@....com>
> 
> The highest clock frequency for eMMC HS200 mode on ls1043a
> is 116.7Mhz according to its specification.
> So add the limit to gate the frequency.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Andy Tang <andy.tang@....com>

It is probably nicer to use a consistent email name.  checkpatch gives this warning:

WARNING: From:/Signed-off-by: email name mismatch: 'From: Yuantian Tang <andy.tang@....com>' != 'Signed-off-by: Andy Tang <andy.tang@....com>'

> ---
>  drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-of-esdhc.c | 7 +++++++
>  1 file changed, 7 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-of-esdhc.c b/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-of-esdhc.c
> index 00542dd74c07..1fd4ae10862d 100644
> --- a/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-of-esdhc.c
> +++ b/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-of-esdhc.c
> @@ -43,6 +43,12 @@ static const struct esdhc_clk_fixup ls1021a_esdhc_clk = {
>  	.max_clk[MMC_TIMING_SD_HS] = 46500000,
>  };
>  
> +static const struct esdhc_clk_fixup ls1043a_esdhc_clk = {
> +	.sd_dflt_max_clk = 25000000,
> +	.max_clk[MMC_TIMING_UHS_SDR104] = 116700000,
> +	.max_clk[MMC_TIMING_MMC_HS200] = 116700000,
> +};

ls1043a_esdhc_clk seems the same as ls1046a_esdhc_clk
Should they be shared? e.g. called ls104xx_esdhc_clk

> +
>  static const struct esdhc_clk_fixup ls1046a_esdhc_clk = {
>  	.sd_dflt_max_clk = 25000000,
>  	.max_clk[MMC_TIMING_UHS_SDR104] = 167000000,
> @@ -64,6 +70,7 @@ static const struct esdhc_clk_fixup p1010_esdhc_clk = {
>  
>  static const struct of_device_id sdhci_esdhc_of_match[] = {
>  	{ .compatible = "fsl,ls1021a-esdhc", .data = &ls1021a_esdhc_clk},
> +	{ .compatible = "fsl,ls1043a-esdhc", .data = &ls1043a_esdhc_clk},
>  	{ .compatible = "fsl,ls1046a-esdhc", .data = &ls1046a_esdhc_clk},
>  	{ .compatible = "fsl,ls1012a-esdhc", .data = &ls1012a_esdhc_clk},
>  	{ .compatible = "fsl,p1010-esdhc",   .data = &p1010_esdhc_clk},