linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] phy: cadence: cdns-dphy: Fix PLL lock and O_CMN

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: <e7cff4f9-da46-4352-8900-3eddae9345a7@ti.com>
Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2025 18:59:58 +0530
From: Devarsh Thakkar <devarsht@...com>
To: Tomi Valkeinen <tomi.valkeinen@...asonboard.com>, <vkoul@...nel.org>,
        <kishon@...nel.org>, <mripard@...nel.org>,
        <linux-phy@...ts.infradead.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
CC: <sakari.ailus@...ux.intel.com>, <u.kleine-koenig@...libre.com>,
        <vigneshr@...com>, <aradhya.bhatia@...ux.dev>, <s-jain1@...com>,
        <r-donadkar@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] phy: cadence: cdns-dphy: Fix PLL lock and
 O_CMN_READY polling

Hi Tomi,

Thanks for the review.

On 02/04/25 17:25, Tomi Valkeinen wrote:
<snip>
>>   /*
>>    * This is the reference implementation of DPHY hooks. Specific 
>> integration of
>>    * this IP may have to re-implement some of them depending on how 
>> they decided
>> @@ -278,6 +309,8 @@ static const struct cdns_dphy_ops j721e_dphy_ops = {
>>       .get_wakeup_time_ns = cdns_dphy_j721e_get_wakeup_time_ns,
>>       .set_pll_cfg = cdns_dphy_j721e_set_pll_cfg,
>>       .set_psm_div = cdns_dphy_j721e_set_psm_div,
>> +    .wait_for_pll_lock = cdns_dphy_j721e_wait_for_pll_lock,
>> +    .wait_for_cmn_ready = cdns_dphy_j721e_wait_for_cmn_ready,
>>   };
>>   static int cdns_dphy_config_from_opts(struct phy *phy,
>> @@ -373,6 +406,14 @@ static int cdns_dphy_configure(struct phy *phy, 
>> union phy_configure_opts *opts)
>>             FIELD_PREP(DPHY_BAND_CFG_RIGHT_BAND, band_ctrl);
>>       writel(reg, dphy->regs + DPHY_BAND_CFG);
>> +    ret = cdns_dphy_wait_for_pll_lock(dphy);
>> +    if (ret)
>> +        dev_err(&dphy->phy->dev, "Failed to lock PLL with err %d\n", 
>> ret);
>> +
>> +    ret = cdns_dphy_wait_for_cmn_ready(dphy);
>> +    if (ret)
>> +        dev_err(&dphy->phy->dev, "O_CMN_READY signal failed to assert 
>> with err %d\n", ret);
>> +
> 
> Shouldn't these return an error? Or what's the reason these are ok (and 
> if so, should the prints be dev_dbg?)
> 

Yes, I think it would be better if we can return error and fail if 
timeout happen. I will fix it in next revision.

Regards
Devarsh

>   Tomi
> 
>>       return 0;
>>   }
>