linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 2/6] clk: qcom: clk-alpha-pll: Update set

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: <60d64abc-a43b-2bdb-812f-8e1198274702@quicinc.com>
Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2024 16:26:23 +0530
From: "Satya Priya Kakitapalli (Temp)" <quic_skakitap@...cinc.com>
To: Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@...aro.org>,
        Bjorn Andersson
	<andersson@...nel.org>,
        Michael Turquette <mturquette@...libre.com>,
        "Stephen
 Boyd" <sboyd@...nel.org>,
        Abhishek Sahu <absahu@...eaurora.org>, Rob Herring
	<robh@...nel.org>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
        Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>
CC: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...eaurora.org>, <linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org>,
        <linux-clk@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>, Ajit Pandey <quic_ajipan@...cinc.com>,
        "Imran
 Shaik" <quic_imrashai@...cinc.com>,
        Taniya Das <quic_tdas@...cinc.com>,
        Jagadeesh Kona <quic_jkona@...cinc.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/6] clk: qcom: clk-alpha-pll: Update set_rate for
 Zonda PLL


On 7/6/2024 7:09 PM, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
> On 2.07.2024 5:50 PM, Satya Priya Kakitapalli wrote:
>> The Zonda PLL has a 16 bit signed alpha and in the cases where the alpha
>> value is greater than 0.5, the L value needs to be adjusted accordingly.
>> Thus update the logic for the same.
>>
>> Also, fix zonda set_rate failure when PLL is disabled. Currently,
>> clk_zonda_pll_set_rate polls for the PLL to lock even if the PLL is
>> disabled. However, if the PLL is disabled then LOCK_DET will never
>> assert and we'll return an error. There is no reason to poll LOCK_DET
>> if the PLL is already disabled, so skip polling in this case.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Satya Priya Kakitapalli <quic_skakitap@...cinc.com>
>> ---
> [...]
>
>> @@ -2077,9 +2089,15 @@ static int clk_zonda_pll_set_rate(struct clk_hw *hw, unsigned long rate,
>>   	if (ret < 0)
>>   		return ret;
>>   
>> +	if (a & BIT(15))
>> +		zonda_pll_adjust_l_val(rate, prate, &l);
> A random check for a seemingly random, undocumented bit only confuses the reader


Sure, I'll define a macro for this.


Thanks.