linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 1/7] mmc: sdhci_am654: Add tuning algorithm for delay chain

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: <49bae1b1-941f-4501-a7b8-2e90bdc20a72@ti.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2024 11:47:31 -0500
From: Judith Mendez <jm@...com>
To: Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>
CC: Andrew Davis <afd@...com>, <linux-mmc@...r.kernel.org>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/7] mmc: sdhci_am654: Add tuning algorithm for delay
 chain

On 3/19/24 1:35 AM, Adrian Hunter wrote:
> On 18/03/24 16:04, Judith Mendez wrote:
>> On 3/14/24 9:18 AM, Adrian Hunter wrote:
>>> On 8/03/24 02:57, Judith Mendez wrote:
>>>> @@ -290,10 +297,12 @@ static void sdhci_am654_set_clock(struct sdhci_host *host, unsigned int clock)
>>>>          regmap_update_bits(sdhci_am654->base, PHY_CTRL4, mask, val);
>>>>    -    if (timing > MMC_TIMING_UHS_SDR25 && clock >= CLOCK_TOO_SLOW_HZ)
>>>> +    if (timing > MMC_TIMING_UHS_SDR25 && clock >= CLOCK_TOO_SLOW_HZ) {
>>>>            sdhci_am654_setup_dll(host, clock);
>>>> -    else
>>>> +        sdhci_am654->dll_enable = true;
>>>> +    } else {
>>>>            sdhci_am654_setup_delay_chain(sdhci_am654, timing);
>>>
>>> V2 patch had here:
>>>
>>>          sdhci_am654->dll_enable = false;
>>>
>>> Was its removal intended?
>>
>> I did remove on purpose since it did not seem to be necessary.
> 
> I suspect it is necessary because ->set_clock() can be called in
> when the timing has changed (e.g. recovery resets and reinitializes
> the card device, or the card changes etc.) but it seems like
> dll_enable would be stuck as always true once it is set to true.
> 
Thinking about this some more, you are right. Will add back, thanks.

~ Judith