linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v15 1/2] pwm: add microchip soft ip corePWM driver

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: <0b91dee7-6c1d-4a33-8235-8fd5d58b200e@spud>
Date:   Sat, 1 Apr 2023 21:50:47 +0100
From:   Conor Dooley <conor@...nel.org>
To:     Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@...rochip.com>
Cc:     Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>,
        Uwe Kleine-König 
        <u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>,
        Daire McNamara <daire.mcnamara@...rochip.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-pwm@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v15 1/2] pwm: add microchip soft ip corePWM driver

On Thu, Mar 30, 2023 at 08:12:03AM +0100, Conor Dooley wrote:

> +	/*
> +	 * Because 0xff is not a permitted value some error will seep into the
> +	 * calculation of prescale as prescale grows. Specifically, this error
> +	 * occurs where the remainder of the prescale calculation is less than
> +	 * prescale.
> +	 * For small values of prescale, only a handful of values will need
> +	 * correction, but overall this applies to almost half of the valid
> +	 * values for tmp.
> +	 *
> +	 * To keep the algorithm's decision making consistent, this case is
> +	 * checked for and the simple solution is to, in these cases,
> +	 * decrement prescale and check that the resulting value of period_steps
> +	 * is valid.
> +	 *
> +	 * period_steps can be computed from prescale:
> +	 *                      period * clk_rate
> +	 * period_steps = ----------------------------- - 1
> +	 *                NSEC_PER_SEC * (prescale + 1)
> +	 *
> +	 */
> +	if (tmp % (MCHPCOREPWM_PERIOD_STEPS_MAX + 1) < *prescale) {

Hmm, looks like 32-bit doesn't like this modulus.
I pushed things out for LKP to test before sending as I felt I'd not be
allowed to do that operation, but got a build success email from it.
I'm not sure why the mail wasn't sent as a reply to this, but
<202304020410.A86IBNES-lkp@...el.com> complains:
pwm-microchip-core.c:(.text+0x20a): undefined reference to `__aeabi_uldivmod'

I know that tmp < 65536 at this point, so if the general approach is
fine, I can always cast it to a non 64-bit type without losing any
information.

> +		u16 smaller_prescale = *prescale - 1;
> +
> +		*period_steps = div_u64(tmp, smaller_prescale + 1) - 1;
> +		if (*period_steps < 255) {
> +			*prescale = smaller_prescale;
> +
> +			return 0;
> +		}
> +	}

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (229 bytes)