linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 2/7] mmc: sdhci_am654: Write ITAPDLY for DDR52 timing

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <34864935-2cf0-4a9f-aa52-bc6dd89da26b@ti.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2024 09:40:33 -0600
From: Judith Mendez <jm@...com>
To: Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>
CC: <linux-mmc@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Ulf Hansson
	<ulf.hansson@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/7] mmc: sdhci_am654: Write ITAPDLY for DDR52 timing

Hi Adrian,

On 2/28/24 7:21 AM, Adrian Hunter wrote:
> On 20/02/24 23:05, Judith Mendez wrote:
>> Hi Adrian,
>>
>> On 2/16/24 11:09 AM, Adrian Hunter wrote:
>>> On 7/02/24 03:15, Judith Mendez wrote:
>>>> For DDR52 timing, DLL is enabled but tuning is not carried
>>>> out, therefore the ITAPDLY value in PHY CTRL 4 register is
>>>> not correct. Fix this by writing ITAPDLY after enabling DLL.
>>>>
>>>> Fixes: a161c45f2979 ("mmc: sdhci_am654: Enable DLL only for some speed modes")
>>>
>>> Note that the Fixes tags make a different ordering
>>> than the patch order i.e.
>>>
>>> Patch    Fixes        in version
>>> 1     13ebeae68ac9     v5.10-rc1
>>> 2     a161c45f2979     v5.7-rc1
>>> 3     8ee5fc0e0b3b     v5.7-rc1
>>> 4     8ee5fc0e0b3b     v5.7-rc1
>>> 4     a0a62497f6aa     v5.10-rc1
>>> 5     fe52e2fbc6ef     v5.9-rc1
>>> 6     1accbced1c32     v5.3-rc1
>>> 7     a161c45f2979     v5.7-rc1
>>>
>>> That might make backporting these patches more challenging.
>>
>> Are you suggesting to remove the fixes tag here?
> 
> No, it is just something to think about if you intend to
> backport these patches to older kernels.

Thanks, Ill keep this in mind for v3.

> 
>>
>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Judith Mendez <jm@...com>
>>>> ---
>>>> Changelog:
>>>> v1->v2:
>>>> - Call sdhci_am654_write_itapdly() in sdhci_am654_set_clock()
>>>>    instead of sdhci_am654_setup_dll()
>>>> ---
>>>>    drivers/mmc/host/sdhci_am654.c | 1 +
>>>>    1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci_am654.c b/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci_am654.c
>>>> index 2c66a965c225..b50db5d4a452 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci_am654.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci_am654.c
>>>> @@ -299,6 +299,7 @@ static void sdhci_am654_set_clock(struct sdhci_host *host, unsigned int clock)
>>>>          if (timing > MMC_TIMING_UHS_SDR25 && clock >= CLOCK_TOO_SLOW_HZ) {
>>>>            sdhci_am654_setup_dll(host, clock);
>>>> +        sdhci_am654_write_itapdly(sdhci_am654, sdhci_am654->itap_del_sel[timing]);
>>>>            sdhci_am654->dll_enable = true;
>>>>        } else {
>>>>            sdhci_am654_setup_delay_chain(sdhci_am654, timing);
>>>
>>
>> ~ Judith
>