linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] phy: freescale: fsl-samsung-hdmi: fix build error in fsl_samsung_hdmi_phy_configure_pll_lock

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: <671f844e-58af-47f3-8c31-776bb41413f2@kylinos.cn>
Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2025 16:45:38 +0800
From: Pei Xiao <xiaopei01@...inos.cn>
To: Adam Ford <aford173@...il.com>,
 Dominique Martinet <dominique.martinet@...ark-techno.com>
Cc: geert@...ux-m68k.org, aford@...conembedded.com, arnd@...db.de,
 frieder.schrempf@...tron.de, kishon@...nel.org, l.stach@...gutronix.de,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-phy@...ts.infradead.org,
 m.felsch@...gutronix.de, sandor.yu@....com, u.kleine-koenig@...libre.com,
 vkoul@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] phy: freescale: fsl-samsung-hdmi: fix build error in
 fsl_samsung_hdmi_phy_configure_pll_lock_det


在 2025/1/3 09:34, Pei Xiao 写道:
> hi Adam,
>
> 在 2025/1/2 23:04, Adam Ford 写道:
>> On Thu, Jan 2, 2025 at 6:15 AM Dominique Martinet
>> <dominique.martinet@...ark-techno.com> wrote:
>>> Adam Ford wrote on Mon, Dec 30, 2024 at 08:11:16PM -0600:
>>>>> index 5eac70a1e858..3e4d1a5160ea 100644
>>>>> --- a/drivers/phy/freescale/phy-fsl-samsung-hdmi.c
>>>>> +++ b/drivers/phy/freescale/phy-fsl-samsung-hdmi.c
>>>>> @@ -341,7 +341,7 @@ fsl_samsung_hdmi_phy_configure_pll_lock_det(struct fsl_samsung_hdmi_phy *phy,
>>>>>                         break;
>>>>>         }
>>>>>
>>>>> -       writeb(FIELD_PREP(REG12_CK_DIV_MASK, div), phy->regs + PHY_REG(12));
>>>>> +       writeb(FIELD_PREP(REG12_CK_DIV_MASK, div == 4 ? div - 1 : div), phy->regs + PHY_REG(12));
>>>> The for-loop above this line states:   for (div = 0; div < 4; div++)
>>>> How could this ever reach 4?  If it did reach 4, the calculation for
>>>> int_pllclk would need to be recalculated since int_pllclk = pclk / (1
>>>> << div);
>>> But... for (div = 0; div < 4; div++) does reach 4, if the break
>>> condition didn't match, which is something the compiler cannot ensure
>>> here.
>>>
>>> The old code would just fall out of any of the switch cases and fallback
>>> to div = 1 if pixclk > 297000000, which is likely incorrect, so in that
>>> sense just padding this through `& 3` and pretending it will never
>>> happen is probably acceptable, but this ought to have a better comment
>>> than what Pei just sent.
>> Maybe we use the MAX function to set div = max(div,3);
> do you mean:
> writeb(FIELD_PREP(REG12_CK_DIV_MASK, min(div, 3)), phy->regs + PHY_REG(12)); 

Does anyone have any suggestions? 

This compilation issue will result in errors on some versions of gcc, 

so it still needs to be resolved after all.

>>> (this was correct with the old lookup tables, I'm not sure if we can't
>>> compute any higher frequencies now?)
>>>
>>> My preference would be to actually check and handle this somehow since I
>>> don't think this part of the code is that performance critical that we
>>> can't afford an extra instruction, e.g. something like that:
>>> if (WARN_ONCE(div == 4, "pixclk %u out of range", pclk))
>>>         (appropriate fallback or return?)
>>>
>>> but I haven't spent the time to actually check so will leave that up to
>>> you.
>>>
>>> Thank you both,
>>> --
>>> Dominique