Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.kernel > #1590169 > unrolled thread

Re: [PATCH v1] mmc: mediatek: Fixed bug where clock frequency could be set wrong

Started byYong Mao <yong.mao@mediatek.com>
First post2017-03-01 11:10 +0100
Last post2017-03-04 08:00 +0100
Articles 3 — 2 participants

Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: [PATCH v1] mmc: mediatek: Fixed bug where clock frequency could  be set wrong Yong Mao <yong.mao@mediatek.com> - 2017-03-01 11:10 +0100
    Re: [PATCH v1] mmc: mediatek: Fixed bug where clock frequency could  be set wrong Daniel Kurtz <djkurtz@chromium.org> - 2017-03-02 13:40 +0100
      Re: [PATCH v1] mmc: mediatek: Fixed bug where clock frequency could  be set wrong Yong Mao <yong.mao@mediatek.com> - 2017-03-04 08:00 +0100

#1590169 — Re: [PATCH v1] mmc: mediatek: Fixed bug where clock frequency could be set wrong

FromYong Mao <yong.mao@mediatek.com>
Date2017-03-01 11:10 +0100
SubjectRe: [PATCH v1] mmc: mediatek: Fixed bug where clock frequency could be set wrong
Message-ID<tg9mN-1zt-11@gated-at.bofh.it>
On Tue, 2017-02-28 at 14:56 +0800, Daniel Kurtz wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 5:38 PM, Yong Mao <yong.mao@mediatek.com> wrote:
> > From:   Yong Mao <yong.mao@mediatek.com>
> > To:     Daniel Kurtz <djkurtz@chromium.org>
> > Subject:        Re: [PATCH v1] mmc: mediatek: Fixed bug where clock frequency
> > could be set wrong
> > Date:   Fri, 24 Feb 2017 17:33:37 +0800
> >
> >
> > On Fri, 2017-02-24 at 17:52 +0900, Daniel Kurtz wrote:
> >> On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 5:22 PM, Yong Mao <yong.mao@mediatek.com>
> > wrote:
> >> >
> >> > From: yong mao <yong.mao@mediatek.com>
> >> >
> >> > This patch can fix two issues:
> >> >
> >> > Issue 1:
> >> > The maximum value of clock divider is 0xff.
> >> > Because the type of div is u32, div may be larger than max_div.
> >> > In this case, we should use max_div to set the clock frequency.
> >> >
> >> > Issue 2:
> >> > In previous code, we can not set the correct clock frequency when
> >> > div equals 0xff.
> >> >
> >> > Signed-off-by: Yong Mao <yong.mao@mediatek.com>
> >> > Signed-off-by: Chaotian Jing <chaotian.jing@mediatek.com>
> >> > ---
> >> >  drivers/mmc/host/mtk-sd.c |   13 ++++++++++++-
> >> >  1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >> >
> >> > diff --git a/drivers/mmc/host/mtk-sd.c b/drivers/mmc/host/mtk-sd.c
> >> > index 07f3236..3174445 100644
> >> > --- a/drivers/mmc/host/mtk-sd.c
> >> > +++ b/drivers/mmc/host/mtk-sd.c
> >> > @@ -540,6 +540,7 @@ static void msdc_set_mclk(struct msdc_host
> > *host, unsigned char timing, u32 hz)
> >> >         u32 mode;
> >> >         u32 flags;
> >> >         u32 div;
> >> > +       u32 max_div;
> >>
> >> There's really no need for this variable.  Just use 0xff below.
> > For all of our IC, max_div is not a constant.
> > We will upstream another patch which max_div will get the different
> > value depending on the IC.
> > Therefore, we keep the max_div as a variable here.
> 
> Please add the variable in the patch that uses it as a variable.
> 
> >
> >>
> >> >         u32 sclk;
> >> >
> >> >         if (!hz) {
> >> > @@ -590,8 +591,18 @@ static void msdc_set_mclk(struct msdc_host
> > *host, unsigned char timing, u32 hz)
> >> >                         sclk = (host->src_clk_freq >> 2) / div;
> >> >                 }
> >> >         }
> >> > +
> >> > +       /**
> >> > +        * The maximum value of div is 0xff.
> >> > +        * Check if the div is larger than max_div.
> >> > +        */
> >> > +       max_div = 0xff;
> >> > +       if (div > max_div) {
> >> > +               div = max_div;
> >> > +               sclk = (host->src_clk_freq >> 2) / div;
> >> > +       }
> >> >         sdr_set_field(host->base + MSDC_CFG, MSDC_CFG_CKMOD |
> > MSDC_CFG_CKDIV,
> >> > -                       (mode << 8) | (div % 0xff));
> >> > +                     (mode << 8) | div);
> >>
> >> Hmm, I don't know much about this sub-system, but should we even be
> >> allowing requests to set a frequency that we can't actually achieve
> >> with the divider?
> >>
> >
> > No. We can not get a frequency that we can't actually achieve with the
> > divider. This patch is to solve this kind of issue.
> 
> Sorry, I am trying to understand why we need this patch.
> 
> AFAICT, it looks like sometimes msdc_set_mclk() is being called with
> hz that cannot be generated by your hardware.  In particular,
> sometimes the original code computes "div > 255".
> To work around this problem, this patch just caps the divider value to
> 255, which is the maximum divider provided by the hardware.  However,
> presumably this means that in this case we won't actually be
> generating the requested hz value.
> 
> So, can you please explain in what exact scenario this patch is
> required, and justify why it is ok to generate a clock other than the
> requested in this case?
> 
> -Dan
> 

This issue is hidden deeply. It is a boundary related issue.
Let me take the real value to explain how this issue occurs.

1. mmc->f_min = host->src_clk_freq / (4 * 255);
   mmc->f_min = 400000000 / (4 * 255) = 392156;
2. mmc core tries to initialize emmc by using 400000hz.
   If the first try failed, it will retry by using max(300000hz,
mmc->f_min)= 392156hz
3. msdc_set_mclk will be invoked by mmc core to set the clock.
   and then following code will be executed.   
div = (host->src_clk_freq + ((hz << 2) - 1)) / (hz << 2);
(div = (400000000 + (392156 << 2) - 1)) / (392156 << 2) = 256)

Why do we use (host->src_clk_freq + ((hz << 2) - 1))?
==> Because if we can not get a proper clock frequency, we should set a
clock frequency which is less than proper clock frequency.

4. In this IC, it only use 8 bits to indicate the value of clock
divider. Therefore, 256 is overflow, it is equal 0 here.
And then we will get a wrong 100000000Hz clock frequency.

Can you understand how this issue occurs now?

> >
> >
> >> >         sdr_set_bits(host->base + MSDC_CFG, MSDC_CFG_CKPDN);
> >> >         while (!(readl(host->base + MSDC_CFG) & MSDC_CFG_CKSTB))
> >> >                 cpu_relax();
> >> > --
> >> > 1.7.9.5
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > _______________________________________________
> >> > Linux-mediatek mailing list
> >> > Linux-mediatek@lists.infradead.org
> >> > http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-mediatek
> >
> >
> >

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1591039

FromDaniel Kurtz <djkurtz@chromium.org>
Date2017-03-02 13:40 +0100
Message-ID<tgybv-2g6-9@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#1590169
On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 5:56 PM, Yong Mao <yong.mao@mediatek.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 2017-02-28 at 14:56 +0800, Daniel Kurtz wrote:
>> On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 5:38 PM, Yong Mao <yong.mao@mediatek.com> wrote:
>> > From:   Yong Mao <yong.mao@mediatek.com>
>> > To:     Daniel Kurtz <djkurtz@chromium.org>
>> > Subject:        Re: [PATCH v1] mmc: mediatek: Fixed bug where clock frequency
>> > could be set wrong
>> > Date:   Fri, 24 Feb 2017 17:33:37 +0800
>> >
>> >
>> > On Fri, 2017-02-24 at 17:52 +0900, Daniel Kurtz wrote:
>> >> On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 5:22 PM, Yong Mao <yong.mao@mediatek.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > From: yong mao <yong.mao@mediatek.com>
>> >> >
>> >> > This patch can fix two issues:
>> >> >
>> >> > Issue 1:
>> >> > The maximum value of clock divider is 0xff.
>> >> > Because the type of div is u32, div may be larger than max_div.
>> >> > In this case, we should use max_div to set the clock frequency.
>> >> >
>> >> > Issue 2:
>> >> > In previous code, we can not set the correct clock frequency when
>> >> > div equals 0xff.
>> >> >
>> >> > Signed-off-by: Yong Mao <yong.mao@mediatek.com>
>> >> > Signed-off-by: Chaotian Jing <chaotian.jing@mediatek.com>
>> >> > ---
>> >> >  drivers/mmc/host/mtk-sd.c |   13 ++++++++++++-
>> >> >  1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>> >> >
>> >> > diff --git a/drivers/mmc/host/mtk-sd.c b/drivers/mmc/host/mtk-sd.c
>> >> > index 07f3236..3174445 100644
>> >> > --- a/drivers/mmc/host/mtk-sd.c
>> >> > +++ b/drivers/mmc/host/mtk-sd.c
>> >> > @@ -540,6 +540,7 @@ static void msdc_set_mclk(struct msdc_host
>> > *host, unsigned char timing, u32 hz)
>> >> >         u32 mode;
>> >> >         u32 flags;
>> >> >         u32 div;
>> >> > +       u32 max_div;
>> >>
>> >> There's really no need for this variable.  Just use 0xff below.
>> > For all of our IC, max_div is not a constant.
>> > We will upstream another patch which max_div will get the different
>> > value depending on the IC.
>> > Therefore, we keep the max_div as a variable here.
>>
>> Please add the variable in the patch that uses it as a variable.
>>
>> >
>> >>
>> >> >         u32 sclk;
>> >> >
>> >> >         if (!hz) {
>> >> > @@ -590,8 +591,18 @@ static void msdc_set_mclk(struct msdc_host
>> > *host, unsigned char timing, u32 hz)
>> >> >                         sclk = (host->src_clk_freq >> 2) / div;
>> >> >                 }
>> >> >         }
>> >> > +
>> >> > +       /**
>> >> > +        * The maximum value of div is 0xff.
>> >> > +        * Check if the div is larger than max_div.
>> >> > +        */
>> >> > +       max_div = 0xff;
>> >> > +       if (div > max_div) {
>> >> > +               div = max_div;
>> >> > +               sclk = (host->src_clk_freq >> 2) / div;
>> >> > +       }
>> >> >         sdr_set_field(host->base + MSDC_CFG, MSDC_CFG_CKMOD |
>> > MSDC_CFG_CKDIV,
>> >> > -                       (mode << 8) | (div % 0xff));
>> >> > +                     (mode << 8) | div);
>> >>
>> >> Hmm, I don't know much about this sub-system, but should we even be
>> >> allowing requests to set a frequency that we can't actually achieve
>> >> with the divider?
>> >>
>> >
>> > No. We can not get a frequency that we can't actually achieve with the
>> > divider. This patch is to solve this kind of issue.
>>
>> Sorry, I am trying to understand why we need this patch.
>>
>> AFAICT, it looks like sometimes msdc_set_mclk() is being called with
>> hz that cannot be generated by your hardware.  In particular,
>> sometimes the original code computes "div > 255".
>> To work around this problem, this patch just caps the divider value to
>> 255, which is the maximum divider provided by the hardware.  However,
>> presumably this means that in this case we won't actually be
>> generating the requested hz value.
>>
>> So, can you please explain in what exact scenario this patch is
>> required, and justify why it is ok to generate a clock other than the
>> requested in this case?
>>
>> -Dan
>>
>
> This issue is hidden deeply. It is a boundary related issue.
> Let me take the real value to explain how this issue occurs.
>
> 1. mmc->f_min = host->src_clk_freq / (4 * 255);
>    mmc->f_min = 400000000 / (4 * 255) = 392156;
> 2. mmc core tries to initialize emmc by using 400000hz.
>    If the first try failed, it will retry by using max(300000hz,
> mmc->f_min)= 392156hz
> 3. msdc_set_mclk will be invoked by mmc core to set the clock.
>    and then following code will be executed.
> div = (host->src_clk_freq + ((hz << 2) - 1)) / (hz << 2);
> (div = (400000000 + (392156 << 2) - 1)) / (392156 << 2) = 256)
>
> Why do we use (host->src_clk_freq + ((hz << 2) - 1))?
> ==> Because if we can not get a proper clock frequency, we should set a
> clock frequency which is less than proper clock frequency.
>
> 4. In this IC, it only use 8 bits to indicate the value of clock
> divider. Therefore, 256 is overflow, it is equal 0 here.
> And then we will get a wrong 100000000Hz clock frequency.
>
> Can you understand how this issue occurs now?

Thanks for the excellent explanation.  Things are a lot clearer now.

I think this can be solved even easier by computing f_min the same way:

  mmc->f_min = DIV_ROUND_UP(400000000, 4 * 255);  /* = 392157 */


>
>> >
>> >
>> >> >         sdr_set_bits(host->base + MSDC_CFG, MSDC_CFG_CKPDN);
>> >> >         while (!(readl(host->base + MSDC_CFG) & MSDC_CFG_CKSTB))
>> >> >                 cpu_relax();
>> >> > --
>> >> > 1.7.9.5
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > _______________________________________________
>> >> > Linux-mediatek mailing list
>> >> > Linux-mediatek@lists.infradead.org
>> >> > http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-mediatek
>> >
>> >
>> >
>
>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1592404

FromYong Mao <yong.mao@mediatek.com>
Date2017-03-04 08:00 +0100
Message-ID<thbPz-51r-1@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#1591039
On Thu, 2017-03-02 at 20:20 +0800, Daniel Kurtz wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 5:56 PM, Yong Mao <yong.mao@mediatek.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, 2017-02-28 at 14:56 +0800, Daniel Kurtz wrote:
> >> On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 5:38 PM, Yong Mao <yong.mao@mediatek.com> wrote:
> >> > From:   Yong Mao <yong.mao@mediatek.com>
> >> > To:     Daniel Kurtz <djkurtz@chromium.org>
> >> > Subject:        Re: [PATCH v1] mmc: mediatek: Fixed bug where clock frequency
> >> > could be set wrong
> >> > Date:   Fri, 24 Feb 2017 17:33:37 +0800
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On Fri, 2017-02-24 at 17:52 +0900, Daniel Kurtz wrote:
> >> >> On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 5:22 PM, Yong Mao <yong.mao@mediatek.com>
> >> > wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > From: yong mao <yong.mao@mediatek.com>
> >> >> >
> >> >> > This patch can fix two issues:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Issue 1:
> >> >> > The maximum value of clock divider is 0xff.
> >> >> > Because the type of div is u32, div may be larger than max_div.
> >> >> > In this case, we should use max_div to set the clock frequency.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Issue 2:
> >> >> > In previous code, we can not set the correct clock frequency when
> >> >> > div equals 0xff.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Signed-off-by: Yong Mao <yong.mao@mediatek.com>
> >> >> > Signed-off-by: Chaotian Jing <chaotian.jing@mediatek.com>
> >> >> > ---
> >> >> >  drivers/mmc/host/mtk-sd.c |   13 ++++++++++++-
> >> >> >  1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >> >> >
> >> >> > diff --git a/drivers/mmc/host/mtk-sd.c b/drivers/mmc/host/mtk-sd.c
> >> >> > index 07f3236..3174445 100644
> >> >> > --- a/drivers/mmc/host/mtk-sd.c
> >> >> > +++ b/drivers/mmc/host/mtk-sd.c
> >> >> > @@ -540,6 +540,7 @@ static void msdc_set_mclk(struct msdc_host
> >> > *host, unsigned char timing, u32 hz)
> >> >> >         u32 mode;
> >> >> >         u32 flags;
> >> >> >         u32 div;
> >> >> > +       u32 max_div;
> >> >>
> >> >> There's really no need for this variable.  Just use 0xff below.
> >> > For all of our IC, max_div is not a constant.
> >> > We will upstream another patch which max_div will get the different
> >> > value depending on the IC.
> >> > Therefore, we keep the max_div as a variable here.
> >>
> >> Please add the variable in the patch that uses it as a variable.
> >>
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> >         u32 sclk;
> >> >> >
> >> >> >         if (!hz) {
> >> >> > @@ -590,8 +591,18 @@ static void msdc_set_mclk(struct msdc_host
> >> > *host, unsigned char timing, u32 hz)
> >> >> >                         sclk = (host->src_clk_freq >> 2) / div;
> >> >> >                 }
> >> >> >         }
> >> >> > +
> >> >> > +       /**
> >> >> > +        * The maximum value of div is 0xff.
> >> >> > +        * Check if the div is larger than max_div.
> >> >> > +        */
> >> >> > +       max_div = 0xff;
> >> >> > +       if (div > max_div) {
> >> >> > +               div = max_div;
> >> >> > +               sclk = (host->src_clk_freq >> 2) / div;
> >> >> > +       }
> >> >> >         sdr_set_field(host->base + MSDC_CFG, MSDC_CFG_CKMOD |
> >> > MSDC_CFG_CKDIV,
> >> >> > -                       (mode << 8) | (div % 0xff));
> >> >> > +                     (mode << 8) | div);
> >> >>
> >> >> Hmm, I don't know much about this sub-system, but should we even be
> >> >> allowing requests to set a frequency that we can't actually achieve
> >> >> with the divider?
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > No. We can not get a frequency that we can't actually achieve with the
> >> > divider. This patch is to solve this kind of issue.
> >>
> >> Sorry, I am trying to understand why we need this patch.
> >>
> >> AFAICT, it looks like sometimes msdc_set_mclk() is being called with
> >> hz that cannot be generated by your hardware.  In particular,
> >> sometimes the original code computes "div > 255".
> >> To work around this problem, this patch just caps the divider value to
> >> 255, which is the maximum divider provided by the hardware.  However,
> >> presumably this means that in this case we won't actually be
> >> generating the requested hz value.
> >>
> >> So, can you please explain in what exact scenario this patch is
> >> required, and justify why it is ok to generate a clock other than the
> >> requested in this case?
> >>
> >> -Dan
> >>
> >
> > This issue is hidden deeply. It is a boundary related issue.
> > Let me take the real value to explain how this issue occurs.
> >
> > 1. mmc->f_min = host->src_clk_freq / (4 * 255);
> >    mmc->f_min = 400000000 / (4 * 255) = 392156;
> > 2. mmc core tries to initialize emmc by using 400000hz.
> >    If the first try failed, it will retry by using max(300000hz,
> > mmc->f_min)= 392156hz
> > 3. msdc_set_mclk will be invoked by mmc core to set the clock.
> >    and then following code will be executed.
> > div = (host->src_clk_freq + ((hz << 2) - 1)) / (hz << 2);
> > (div = (400000000 + (392156 << 2) - 1)) / (392156 << 2) = 256)
> >
> > Why do we use (host->src_clk_freq + ((hz << 2) - 1))?
> > ==> Because if we can not get a proper clock frequency, we should set a
> > clock frequency which is less than proper clock frequency.
> >
> > 4. In this IC, it only use 8 bits to indicate the value of clock
> > divider. Therefore, 256 is overflow, it is equal 0 here.
> > And then we will get a wrong 100000000Hz clock frequency.
> >
> > Can you understand how this issue occurs now?
> 
> Thanks for the excellent explanation.  Things are a lot clearer now.
> 
> I think this can be solved even easier by computing f_min the same way:
> 
>   mmc->f_min = DIV_ROUND_UP(400000000, 4 * 255);  /* = 392157 */
> 
That is really a easier way to solve this issue.
I will submit a new version as soon as possible.
Thanks.

> 
> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >> >         sdr_set_bits(host->base + MSDC_CFG, MSDC_CFG_CKPDN);
> >> >> >         while (!(readl(host->base + MSDC_CFG) & MSDC_CFG_CKSTB))
> >> >> >                 cpu_relax();
> >> >> > --
> >> >> > 1.7.9.5
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > _______________________________________________
> >> >> > Linux-mediatek mailing list
> >> >> > Linux-mediatek@lists.infradead.org
> >> >> > http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-mediatek
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >
> >

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel

csiph-web