linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V2 4/6] regulator: qcom_smd: Add support to define the bootup voltage

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]

Date:   Fri, 3 Mar 2023 14:27:00 +0100
From:   Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@...aro.org>
To:     Devi Priya <quic_devipriy@...cinc.com>,
        Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
Cc:     agross@...nel.org, andersson@...nel.org, lgirdwood@...il.com,
        robh+dt@...nel.org, krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org,
        linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org, quic_srichara@...cinc.com,
        quic_gokulsri@...cinc.com, quic_sjaganat@...cinc.com,
        quic_kathirav@...cinc.com, quic_arajkuma@...cinc.com,
        quic_anusha@...cinc.com, quic_ipkumar@...cinc.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 4/6] regulator: qcom_smd: Add support to define the
 bootup voltage



On 3.03.2023 14:21, Devi Priya wrote:
> 
> 
> On 2/23/2023 4:31 AM, Mark Brown wrote:
>> On Wed, Feb 22, 2023 at 11:11:42PM +0100, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
>>
>>> Thinking about it again, this seems like something that could be
>>> generalized and introduced into regulator core.. Hardcoding this
>>> will not end well.. Not to mention it'll affect all mp5496-using
>>> boards that are already upstream.
>>
>>> WDYT about regulator-init-microvolts Mark?
>>
>> The overwhelming majority of devices that have variable voltages
>> support readback, these Qualcomm firmware devices are pretty much
>> unique in this regard.  We don't want a general property to set a
>> specific voltage since normally we should be using the
>> constraints and don't normally need to adjust things immediately
>> since we can tell what the current voltage is.
>>
>> This is pretty much just going to be a device specific bodge,
>> ideally something that does know what the voltage is would be
>> able to tell us at runtime but if that's not possible then
>> there's no good options.  If the initial voltage might vary based
>> on board then a device specific DT property might be less
>> terrible, if it's determined by the regulator the current code
>> seems fine.  Or just leave the current behavour, if the
>> constraints are accurate then hopefully a temporary dip in
>> voltage is just inelegant rather than an issue.  Indeed the
>> current behaviour might well save power if you've got a voltage
>> range configured and nothing actually ever gets round to setting
>> the voltage (which is depressingly common, people seem keen on
>> setting voltage ranges even when the voltage is never varied in
>> practice).
> 
> Hi Mark, The initial bootup voltage is actually blown into the OTP register of the PMIC and it remains the same across boards for IPQ9574 SoC.
But what about IPQ6018 which also uses MP5496? That's also gonna
set the voltage on there, it may be too high/low..

 Initially the SoC runs at 800MHz with a voltage of 875mV set by the bootloaders. As kernel does not know the initial voltage, during regulator registration the framework considers the current voltage to be zero and tries to bring up the regulator to minimum supported voltage of 600mV. This causes the dip which might be of concern in SS parts where the voltage might be insufficient leading to silent reboots.
That's an SoC-specific thing, the same regulator can be used with
many different ones. We can't just assume it'll always be like this.
I see the problem, but I believe this is not the correct solution.

Konrad
> 
> Best Regards,
> Devi Priya