netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 7/9] mlxsw: spectrum_ptp: Add implementation for physical hardware clock operations

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]

Date:   Tue, 4 Jun 2019 07:28:19 -0700
From:   Richard Cochran <richardcochran@...il.com>
To:     Ido Schimmel <idosch@...sch.org>
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, davem@...emloft.net, jiri@...lanox.com,
        shalomt@...lanox.com, petrm@...lanox.com, mlxsw@...lanox.com,
        Ido Schimmel <idosch@...lanox.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 7/9] mlxsw: spectrum_ptp: Add implementation for
 physical hardware clock operations

On Mon, Jun 03, 2019 at 03:12:42PM +0300, Ido Schimmel wrote:

> +static int
> +mlxsw_sp1_ptp_update_phc_settime(struct mlxsw_sp_ptp_clock *clock, u64 nsec)

Six words ^^^

What is wrong with "mlxsw_phc_settime" ?

> +{
> +	struct mlxsw_core *mlxsw_core = clock->core;
> +	char mtutc_pl[MLXSW_REG_MTUTC_LEN];
> +	char mtpps_pl[MLXSW_REG_MTPPS_LEN];
> +	u64 next_sec_in_nsec, cycles;
> +	u32 next_sec;
> +	int err;
> +
> +	next_sec = nsec / NSEC_PER_SEC + 1;
> +	next_sec_in_nsec = next_sec * NSEC_PER_SEC;
> +
> +	spin_lock(&clock->lock);
> +	cycles = mlxsw_sp1_ptp_ns2cycles(&clock->tc, next_sec_in_nsec);
> +	spin_unlock(&clock->lock);
> +
> +	mlxsw_reg_mtpps_vpin_pack(mtpps_pl, cycles);
> +	err = mlxsw_reg_write(mlxsw_core, MLXSW_REG(mtpps), mtpps_pl);
> +	if (err)
> +		return err;
> +
> +	mlxsw_reg_mtutc_pack(mtutc_pl,
> +			     MLXSW_REG_MTUTC_OPERATION_SET_TIME_AT_NEXT_SEC,
> +			     0, next_sec);
> +	return mlxsw_reg_write(mlxsw_core, MLXSW_REG(mtutc), mtutc_pl);
> +}
> +
> +static int mlxsw_sp1_ptp_adjfine(struct ptp_clock_info *ptp, long scaled_ppm)
> +{
> +	struct mlxsw_sp_ptp_clock *clock =
> +		container_of(ptp, struct mlxsw_sp_ptp_clock, ptp_info);
> +	int neg_adj = 0;
> +	u32 diff;
> +	u64 adj;
> +	s32 ppb;
> +
> +	ppb = ptp_clock_scaled_ppm_to_ppb(scaled_ppm);

Now I see why you did this.  Nice try.

The 'scaled_ppm' has a finer resolution than ppb.  Please make use of
the finer resolution in your calculation.  It does make a difference.

> +
> +	if (ppb < 0) {
> +		neg_adj = 1;
> +		ppb = -ppb;
> +	}
> +
> +	adj = clock->nominal_c_mult;
> +	adj *= ppb;
> +	diff = div_u64(adj, NSEC_PER_SEC);
> +
> +	spin_lock(&clock->lock);
> +	timecounter_read(&clock->tc);
> +	clock->cycles.mult = neg_adj ? clock->nominal_c_mult - diff :
> +				       clock->nominal_c_mult + diff;
> +	spin_unlock(&clock->lock);
> +
> +	return mlxsw_sp1_ptp_update_phc_adjfreq(clock, neg_adj ? -ppb : ppb);
> +}

Thanks,
Richard