linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 06/10] phy: qcom: Add M31 based eUSB2 PHY driver

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: <6fa4959c-d733-4d50-904f-caf933e02da9@oss.qualcomm.com>
Date: Sat, 17 May 2025 20:28:49 +0200
From: Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@....qualcomm.com>
To: Wesley Cheng <quic_wcheng@...cinc.com>, Vinod Koul <vkoul@...nel.org>
Cc: Melody Olvera <melody.olvera@....qualcomm.com>,
        Kishon Vijay Abraham I <kishon@...nel.org>,
        Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>,
        Conor Dooley
 <conor+dt@...nel.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Philipp Zabel <p.zabel@...gutronix.de>,
        Bjorn Andersson <andersson@...nel.org>,
        Konrad Dybcio <konradybcio@...nel.org>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>, linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-phy@...ts.infradead.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-usb@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 06/10] phy: qcom: Add M31 based eUSB2 PHY driver

On 5/14/25 8:24 PM, Wesley Cheng wrote:
> Hi Vinod,
> 
> On 5/14/2025 1:33 AM, Vinod Koul wrote:
>> On 16-04-25, 15:45, Wesley Cheng wrote:
>>> Hi Vinod,
>>>
>>> On 4/10/2025 4:53 AM, Vinod Koul wrote:
>>>> On 09-04-25, 10:48, Melody Olvera wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> +static int m31eusb2_phy_write_readback(void __iomem *base, u32 offset,
>>>>> +					const u32 mask, u32 val)
>>>>> +{
>>>>> +	u32 write_val;
>>>>> +	u32 tmp;
>>>>> +
>>>>> +	tmp = readl_relaxed(base + offset);
>>>>> +	tmp &= ~mask;
>>>>> +	write_val = tmp | val;
>>>>> +
>>>>> +	writel_relaxed(write_val, base + offset);
>>>>> +
>>>>> +	tmp = readl_relaxed(base + offset);
>>>>
>>>> Why are you using _relaxed version here?
>>>>
>>>
>>> No particular reason.  I think someone pointed this out previously, and I
>>> was open to use the non-relaxed variants, but I assume using the relaxed vs
>>> non-relaxed apis comes down to preference in this case.
>>
>> Nope you cant! There _needs_ to be a specific reasons!
>> When you are doing read, modify, write, it is very important to know the
>> right version to use...
>>
> 
> I mean, its a write readback, which ensures the bus transaction is complete
> based on [1], hence why **in this situation** it is up to preference.
> 
> Otherwise, w/o the readback then we'd need to ensure writes are made
> depending on the required sequencing (in spots where the sequence is
> strictly defined), and that can be enforced using barriers.  If you feel
> like using the non-relaxed variant is preferred let me know.  I can replace
> it and remove the readback.

Readback is stronger on arm64, as otherwise the writes may be buffered and
not observable at the other endpoint even though the instruction has been
issued, even if a barrier has been issued

Some resources:

https://youtu.be/i6DayghhA8Q
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-msm/20240618153419.GC2354@willie-the-truck/
https://developer.arm.com/documentation/ddi0487/latest sec B2.6.9

There's been a real bug observed (pun not intended):
Commit 2f8cf2c3f3e3 ("clk: qcom: reset: Ensure write completion on reset de/assertion")

Konrad