linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH net] net: lan966x: Fix the initialization of taprio

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: <20251119082646.y3afgrypbknp2t2g@DEN-DL-M31836.microchip.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2025 09:26:46 +0100
From: Horatiu Vultur <horatiu.vultur@...rochip.com>
To: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
CC: <UNGLinuxDriver@...rochip.com>, <andrew+netdev@...n.ch>,
	<davem@...emloft.net>, <edumazet@...gle.com>, <kuba@...nel.org>,
	<pabeni@...hat.com>, <richardcochran@...il.com>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] net: lan966x: Fix the initialization of taprio

The 11/18/2025 20:20, Andrew Lunn wrote:

Hi Andrew,

> 
> On Mon, Nov 17, 2025 at 03:43:09PM +0100, Horatiu Vultur wrote:
> > To initialize the taprio block in lan966x, it is required to configure
> > the register REVISIT_DLY. The purpose of this register is to set the
> > delay before revisit the next gate and the value of this register depends
> > on the system clock. The problem is that the we calculated wrong the value
> > of the system clock period in picoseconds. The actual system clock is
> > ~165.617754MHZ and this correspond to a period of 6038 pico seconds and
> > not 15125 as currently set.
> 
> Is the system clock available as a linux clock? Can you do a
> clk_get_rate() on it?

Unfortunetly, I can not do clk_get_rate because in the device tree for the
switch node I don't have any clocks property. And maybe that is the
problem because I have the system clock (sys_clk) in the lan966x.dtsi
file. But if I go this way then I need add a bigger changeset and add
it to multiple kernel trees which complicate the things.
So maybe I should not change this patch and then create another one
targeting net-next where I can start using clk_get_rate()

> 
>         Andrew

-- 
/Horatiu