linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] clk: qcom: gcc-sm8450: set OPS_PARENT_ENABLE on gcc_sdcc2_apps_clk

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: Tue, 07 May 2024 13:28:40 -0700
From: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>
To: Bjorn Andersson <andersson@...nel.org>, Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@...aro.org>, Michael Turquette <mturquette@...libre.com>, Vinod Koul <vkoul@...nel.org>
Cc: Marijn Suijten <marijn.suijten@...ainline.org>, linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, linux-clk@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] clk: qcom: gcc-sm8450: set OPS_PARENT_ENABLE on gcc_sdcc2_apps_clk_src

Quoting Konrad Dybcio (2024-05-07 06:51:04)
> 
> without PARENT_OPS_ENABLE:
> 
> [    3.326891] sdhci_msm 8804000.mmc: Got CD GPIO
> [    3.336839] scsi host0: ufshcd
> [    3.337105] gcc_sdcc2_apps_clk_src is DISABLED @ set_rate
> [    3.346339] ------------[ cut here ]------------
> [    3.351093] gcc_sdcc2_apps_clk_src: rcg didn't update its configuration.
> [    3.351114] WARNING: CPU: 1 PID: 11 at drivers/clk/qcom/clk-rcg2.c:133 update_config+0xc8/0xd8
> 
> [...]
> 
> [    3.610523] gcc_sdcc2_apps_clk_src is ENABLED @ set_rate
> 
> 
> with PARENT_OPS_ENABLE:
> 
> [    3.331419] sdhci_msm 8804000.mmc: Got CD GPIO
> [    3.336569] gcc_sdcc2_apps_clk_src is DISABLED @ set_rate
> [    3.344795] scsi host0: ufshcd
> [    3.355122] qcrypto 1dfa000.crypto: Adding to iommu group 5
> [    3.363567] remoteproc remoteproc0: 2400000.remoteproc is available
> [    3.364729] gcc_sdcc2_apps_clk_src is ENABLED @ set_rate
> 
> after testing it both ways, I realized it wasn't supposed to make a
> difference in this regard, but I suppose I can paste both results anyway..
> 

Can you share your patch that prints the message? What bit are you
checking in the hardware to determine if the RCG is enabled? Do you also
print the enable count in software?