linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 1/2] clocksource/drivers/arm_global

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: <ec0b3dfb-3ce2-43f2-9cd4-042c3aca4cf7@linaro.org>
Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2024 23:59:07 +0100
From: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>
To: Martin Blumenstingl <martin.blumenstingl@...glemail.com>,
 tglx@...utronix.de
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
 andrea.merello@...il.com, patrice.chotard@...s.st.com,
 linux-amlogic@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/2] clocksource/drivers/arm_global_timer: Fix maximum
 prescaler value

On 18/02/2024 18:41, Martin Blumenstingl wrote:
> The prescaler in the "Global Timer Control Register bit assignments" is
> documented to use bits [15:8], which means that the maximum prescaler
> register value is 0xff.
> 
> Fixes: 171b45a4a70e ("clocksource/drivers/arm_global_timer: Implement rate compensation whenever source clock changes")
> Signed-off-by: Martin Blumenstingl <martin.blumenstingl@...glemail.com>
> ---
>   drivers/clocksource/arm_global_timer.c | 2 +-
>   1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/clocksource/arm_global_timer.c b/drivers/clocksource/arm_global_timer.c
> index 44a61dc6f932..e1c773bb5535 100644
> --- a/drivers/clocksource/arm_global_timer.c
> +++ b/drivers/clocksource/arm_global_timer.c
> @@ -32,7 +32,7 @@
>   #define GT_CONTROL_IRQ_ENABLE		BIT(2)	/* banked */
>   #define GT_CONTROL_AUTO_INC		BIT(3)	/* banked */
>   #define GT_CONTROL_PRESCALER_SHIFT      8
> -#define GT_CONTROL_PRESCALER_MAX        0xF
> +#define GT_CONTROL_PRESCALER_MAX        0xFF
>   #define GT_CONTROL_PRESCALER_MASK       (GT_CONTROL_PRESCALER_MAX << \
>   					 GT_CONTROL_PRESCALER_SHIFT

Good catch!

IMO the initial confusion is coming from the shift and the mask size.

But should GT_CONTROL_PRESCALER_MAX be 256 ? so (0xFF + 1)

The following may be less confusing:

#define GT_CONTROL_PRESCALER_SHIFT	8
#define GT_CONTROL_PRESCALER_MASK	GENMASK(15,8)
#define GT_CONTROL_PRESCALER_MAX	(GT_CONTROL_PRESCALER_MASK >> \
					 GT_CONTROL_PRESCALER_SHIFT) + 1


-- 
<http://www.linaro.org/> Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs

Follow Linaro:  <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Linaro> Facebook |
<http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg> Twitter |
<http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog/> Blog