linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] clk: meson: Fix glitch free mux related issues

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: <36cd6282-ae1d-43f3-8738-592f043d0ba6@amlogic.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2025 17:31:07 +0800
From: Chuan Liu <chuan.liu@...ogic.com>
To: Jerome Brunet <jbrunet@...libre.com>,
 Martin Blumenstingl <martin.blumenstingl@...glemail.com>
Cc: Michael Turquette <mturquette@...libre.com>,
 Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>, Neil Armstrong <neil.armstrong@...aro.org>,
 Kevin Hilman <khilman@...libre.com>, linux-clk@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-amlogic@...ts.infradead.org,
 linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] clk: meson: Fix glitch free mux related issues


On 9/29/2025 4:48 PM, Jerome Brunet wrote:
> [ EXTERNAL EMAIL ]
>
> On Sun 28 Sep 2025 at 22:55, Martin Blumenstingl <martin.blumenstingl@...glemail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> On Sun, Sep 28, 2025 at 8:41 AM Chuan Liu <chuan.liu@...ogic.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 9/28/2025 2:05 PM, Chuan Liu wrote:
>>>> Hi Jerome & Martin:
>>>>
>>>> Sorry for the imprecise description of the glitch-free mux earlier.
>>>>
>>>> Recently, while troubleshooting a CPU hang issue caused by glitches,
>>>> I realized there was a discrepancy from our previous understanding,
>>>> so I'd like to clarify it here.
>> [...]
>>> An example of the clock waveform is shown below:
>>>
>>>
>                       1                  2
>                       v                  v
>>>          __    __    __    __    __    __    __    __
>>> ori:  ↑  |__↑  |__↑  |__↑  |__↑  |__↑  |__↑  |__↑  |__↑
>>>                     ^
>>>                     1 * cycle original channel.
>>>          _   _   _   _   _   _   _   _   _   _   _   _
>>> new:  ↑ |_↑ |_↑ |_↑ |_↑ |_↑ |_↑ |_↑ |_↑ |_↑ |_↑ |_↑ |_↑
>>>                                         ^
>>>                                         5 * cycles new channel.
>>>          __    __                        _   _   _   _
>>> out:  ↑  |__↑  |______________________↑ |_↑ |_↑ |_↑ |_↑
>>>                ^                        ^
>>>                start switching mux.     switch to new channel.
> Ok ... but when is it safe to disable the "ori" clock ?
> Can you do it at '1' already ? or do you have to wait for '2' ?


It should wait for "2", because there is a state machine in the
glitch-free mux, this state machine is driven by the working clock
provided by its channel 0.


>
>> Thank you for the detailed report!
>> This is indeed problematic behavior. I guess the result is somewhat
>> random: depending on load (power draw), silicon lottery (quality),
>> temperature, voltage supply, ... - one may or may not see crashes
>> caused by this.
>>
>> Based on the previous discussion on this topic, my suggestion is to
>> split the original patch:
>> - one to add CLK_SET_RATE_GATE where needed (I think the meson8b.c
>> driver already has this where needed) to actually enable the
>> glitch-free mux behavior
>> - another one with the CLK_OPS_PARENT_ENABLE change (meson8b.c would
>> also need to be updated) to prevent the glitch-free mux from
>> temporarily outputting an electrical low signal. Jerome also asked to
>> document the behavior so we don't forget why we set this flag
> Yes please split the changes and visit all the controllers shipping this
> type of muxes.
>
>> Both patches should get the proper "Fixes" tags.
> ... and proper fixes tag maybe different depending on the controller so
> there might more that just 2 changes.
>
>> I think it would also be great if you could include the waveform
>> example in at least the commit message as it helps understand the
>> problem.
>>
>> Let's also give Jerome some time to comment before you send patches.
>>
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Martin
> --
> Jerome