All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@gmail.com>
To: Simon South <simon@simonsouth.net>
Cc: tpiepho@gmail.com, u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de,
	lee.jones@linaro.org, heiko@sntech.de, bbrezillon@kernel.org,
	linux-pwm@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
	linux-rockchip@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] pwm: rockchip: Eliminate potential race condition when probing
Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2020 18:48:30 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <X9JfbpTnfqUVk6iN@ulmo> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20201130004419.1714-1-simon@simonsouth.net>

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2979 bytes --]

On Sun, Nov 29, 2020 at 07:44:19PM -0500, Simon South wrote:
> Commit 48cf973cae33 ("pwm: rockchip: Avoid glitches on already running
> PWMs") introduced a potential race condition in rockchip_pwm_probe() by
> having it disable the clock of a PWM already registered through a call to
> pwmchip_add().
> 
> Eliminate this possibility by calling clk_enable() for a probed PWM's clock
> only when it appears the PWM itself has already been enabled (by a
> bootloader, presumably), instead of always enabling the clock and then
> disabling it after registration for non-enabled PWMs.
> 
> Fixes: 48cf973cae33 ("pwm: rockchip: Avoid glitches on already running PWMs")
> Fixes: 457f74abbed0 ("pwm: rockchip: Keep enabled PWMs running while probing")
> Reported-by: Trent Piepho <tpiepho@gmail.com>
> Signed-off-by: Simon South <simon@simonsouth.net>
> ---
>  drivers/pwm/pwm-rockchip.c | 45 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------
>  1 file changed, 31 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/pwm/pwm-rockchip.c b/drivers/pwm/pwm-rockchip.c
> index 77c23a2c6d71..7efba1d0adb4 100644
> --- a/drivers/pwm/pwm-rockchip.c
> +++ b/drivers/pwm/pwm-rockchip.c
> @@ -289,6 +289,7 @@ static int rockchip_pwm_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>  	struct rockchip_pwm_chip *pc;
>  	struct resource *r;
>  	u32 enable_conf, ctrl;
> +	bool enabled;
>  	int ret, count;
>  
>  	id = of_match_device(rockchip_pwm_dt_ids, &pdev->dev);
> @@ -299,6 +300,8 @@ static int rockchip_pwm_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>  	if (!pc)
>  		return -ENOMEM;
>  
> +	pc->data = id->data;
> +
>  	r = platform_get_resource(pdev, IORESOURCE_MEM, 0);
>  	pc->base = devm_ioremap_resource(&pdev->dev, r);
>  	if (IS_ERR(pc->base))
> @@ -326,21 +329,38 @@ static int rockchip_pwm_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>  		return ret;
>  	}
>  
> -	ret = clk_prepare_enable(pc->clk);
> +	ret = clk_prepare(pc->clk);
>  	if (ret) {
> -		dev_err(&pdev->dev, "Can't prepare enable bus clk: %d\n", ret);
> +		dev_err(&pdev->dev, "Can't prepare bus clk: %d\n", ret);
>  		return ret;
>  	}
>  
> +	/*
> +	 * If it appears the PWM has already been enabled, perhaps by a
> +	 * bootloader, re-enable its clock to increment the clock's enable
> +	 * counter and ensure it is kept running (particularly in the case
> +	 * where there is no separate APB clock).
> +	 */
> +	enable_conf = pc->data->enable_conf;
> +	ctrl = readl_relaxed(pc->base + pc->data->regs.ctrl);
> +	enabled = (ctrl & enable_conf) == enable_conf;

Given that we don't enable the bus clock before this, is it even safe to
access registers on the bus if the clock is disabled? I've seen a lot of
cases where accesses to an unclocked bus either lead to silent hangs or
very noisy crashes, and I would expect something like that (or something
in between) to happen on Rockchip SoCs.

Have you tested this for cases where the bus clock is initially
disabled?

Thierry

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@gmail.com>
To: Simon South <simon@simonsouth.net>
Cc: linux-pwm@vger.kernel.org, heiko@sntech.de,
	bbrezillon@kernel.org, linux-rockchip@lists.infradead.org,
	u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de, tpiepho@gmail.com,
	lee.jones@linaro.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] pwm: rockchip: Eliminate potential race condition when probing
Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2020 18:48:30 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <X9JfbpTnfqUVk6iN@ulmo> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20201130004419.1714-1-simon@simonsouth.net>


[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2979 bytes --]

On Sun, Nov 29, 2020 at 07:44:19PM -0500, Simon South wrote:
> Commit 48cf973cae33 ("pwm: rockchip: Avoid glitches on already running
> PWMs") introduced a potential race condition in rockchip_pwm_probe() by
> having it disable the clock of a PWM already registered through a call to
> pwmchip_add().
> 
> Eliminate this possibility by calling clk_enable() for a probed PWM's clock
> only when it appears the PWM itself has already been enabled (by a
> bootloader, presumably), instead of always enabling the clock and then
> disabling it after registration for non-enabled PWMs.
> 
> Fixes: 48cf973cae33 ("pwm: rockchip: Avoid glitches on already running PWMs")
> Fixes: 457f74abbed0 ("pwm: rockchip: Keep enabled PWMs running while probing")
> Reported-by: Trent Piepho <tpiepho@gmail.com>
> Signed-off-by: Simon South <simon@simonsouth.net>
> ---
>  drivers/pwm/pwm-rockchip.c | 45 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------
>  1 file changed, 31 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/pwm/pwm-rockchip.c b/drivers/pwm/pwm-rockchip.c
> index 77c23a2c6d71..7efba1d0adb4 100644
> --- a/drivers/pwm/pwm-rockchip.c
> +++ b/drivers/pwm/pwm-rockchip.c
> @@ -289,6 +289,7 @@ static int rockchip_pwm_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>  	struct rockchip_pwm_chip *pc;
>  	struct resource *r;
>  	u32 enable_conf, ctrl;
> +	bool enabled;
>  	int ret, count;
>  
>  	id = of_match_device(rockchip_pwm_dt_ids, &pdev->dev);
> @@ -299,6 +300,8 @@ static int rockchip_pwm_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>  	if (!pc)
>  		return -ENOMEM;
>  
> +	pc->data = id->data;
> +
>  	r = platform_get_resource(pdev, IORESOURCE_MEM, 0);
>  	pc->base = devm_ioremap_resource(&pdev->dev, r);
>  	if (IS_ERR(pc->base))
> @@ -326,21 +329,38 @@ static int rockchip_pwm_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>  		return ret;
>  	}
>  
> -	ret = clk_prepare_enable(pc->clk);
> +	ret = clk_prepare(pc->clk);
>  	if (ret) {
> -		dev_err(&pdev->dev, "Can't prepare enable bus clk: %d\n", ret);
> +		dev_err(&pdev->dev, "Can't prepare bus clk: %d\n", ret);
>  		return ret;
>  	}
>  
> +	/*
> +	 * If it appears the PWM has already been enabled, perhaps by a
> +	 * bootloader, re-enable its clock to increment the clock's enable
> +	 * counter and ensure it is kept running (particularly in the case
> +	 * where there is no separate APB clock).
> +	 */
> +	enable_conf = pc->data->enable_conf;
> +	ctrl = readl_relaxed(pc->base + pc->data->regs.ctrl);
> +	enabled = (ctrl & enable_conf) == enable_conf;

Given that we don't enable the bus clock before this, is it even safe to
access registers on the bus if the clock is disabled? I've seen a lot of
cases where accesses to an unclocked bus either lead to silent hangs or
very noisy crashes, and I would expect something like that (or something
in between) to happen on Rockchip SoCs.

Have you tested this for cases where the bus clock is initially
disabled?

Thierry

[-- Attachment #1.2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 170 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
Linux-rockchip mailing list
Linux-rockchip@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-rockchip

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@gmail.com>
To: Simon South <simon@simonsouth.net>
Cc: linux-pwm@vger.kernel.org, heiko@sntech.de,
	bbrezillon@kernel.org, linux-rockchip@lists.infradead.org,
	u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de, tpiepho@gmail.com,
	lee.jones@linaro.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] pwm: rockchip: Eliminate potential race condition when probing
Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2020 18:48:30 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <X9JfbpTnfqUVk6iN@ulmo> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20201130004419.1714-1-simon@simonsouth.net>


[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2979 bytes --]

On Sun, Nov 29, 2020 at 07:44:19PM -0500, Simon South wrote:
> Commit 48cf973cae33 ("pwm: rockchip: Avoid glitches on already running
> PWMs") introduced a potential race condition in rockchip_pwm_probe() by
> having it disable the clock of a PWM already registered through a call to
> pwmchip_add().
> 
> Eliminate this possibility by calling clk_enable() for a probed PWM's clock
> only when it appears the PWM itself has already been enabled (by a
> bootloader, presumably), instead of always enabling the clock and then
> disabling it after registration for non-enabled PWMs.
> 
> Fixes: 48cf973cae33 ("pwm: rockchip: Avoid glitches on already running PWMs")
> Fixes: 457f74abbed0 ("pwm: rockchip: Keep enabled PWMs running while probing")
> Reported-by: Trent Piepho <tpiepho@gmail.com>
> Signed-off-by: Simon South <simon@simonsouth.net>
> ---
>  drivers/pwm/pwm-rockchip.c | 45 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------
>  1 file changed, 31 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/pwm/pwm-rockchip.c b/drivers/pwm/pwm-rockchip.c
> index 77c23a2c6d71..7efba1d0adb4 100644
> --- a/drivers/pwm/pwm-rockchip.c
> +++ b/drivers/pwm/pwm-rockchip.c
> @@ -289,6 +289,7 @@ static int rockchip_pwm_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>  	struct rockchip_pwm_chip *pc;
>  	struct resource *r;
>  	u32 enable_conf, ctrl;
> +	bool enabled;
>  	int ret, count;
>  
>  	id = of_match_device(rockchip_pwm_dt_ids, &pdev->dev);
> @@ -299,6 +300,8 @@ static int rockchip_pwm_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>  	if (!pc)
>  		return -ENOMEM;
>  
> +	pc->data = id->data;
> +
>  	r = platform_get_resource(pdev, IORESOURCE_MEM, 0);
>  	pc->base = devm_ioremap_resource(&pdev->dev, r);
>  	if (IS_ERR(pc->base))
> @@ -326,21 +329,38 @@ static int rockchip_pwm_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>  		return ret;
>  	}
>  
> -	ret = clk_prepare_enable(pc->clk);
> +	ret = clk_prepare(pc->clk);
>  	if (ret) {
> -		dev_err(&pdev->dev, "Can't prepare enable bus clk: %d\n", ret);
> +		dev_err(&pdev->dev, "Can't prepare bus clk: %d\n", ret);
>  		return ret;
>  	}
>  
> +	/*
> +	 * If it appears the PWM has already been enabled, perhaps by a
> +	 * bootloader, re-enable its clock to increment the clock's enable
> +	 * counter and ensure it is kept running (particularly in the case
> +	 * where there is no separate APB clock).
> +	 */
> +	enable_conf = pc->data->enable_conf;
> +	ctrl = readl_relaxed(pc->base + pc->data->regs.ctrl);
> +	enabled = (ctrl & enable_conf) == enable_conf;

Given that we don't enable the bus clock before this, is it even safe to
access registers on the bus if the clock is disabled? I've seen a lot of
cases where accesses to an unclocked bus either lead to silent hangs or
very noisy crashes, and I would expect something like that (or something
in between) to happen on Rockchip SoCs.

Have you tested this for cases where the bus clock is initially
disabled?

Thierry

[-- Attachment #1.2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 176 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

  reply	other threads:[~2020-12-10 17:49 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 33+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2020-09-19 19:33 [PATCH v2] pwm: rockchip: Keep enabled PWMs running while probing Simon South
2020-09-19 19:33 ` Simon South
2020-09-19 19:33 ` Simon South
2020-09-21  8:01 ` Uwe Kleine-König
2020-09-21  8:01   ` Uwe Kleine-König
2020-09-21  8:01   ` Uwe Kleine-König
2020-09-23 10:49 ` Heiko Stübner
2020-09-23 10:49   ` Heiko Stübner
2020-09-23 10:49   ` Heiko Stübner
2020-09-23 11:41 ` Thierry Reding
2020-09-23 11:41   ` Thierry Reding
2020-09-23 11:41   ` Thierry Reding
2020-11-21  1:09 ` Trent Piepho
2020-11-21  1:09   ` Trent Piepho
2020-11-21  1:09   ` Trent Piepho
2020-11-30  0:36   ` Simon South
2020-11-30  0:36     ` Simon South
2020-11-30  0:36     ` Simon South
2020-11-30  0:44     ` [PATCH] pwm: rockchip: Eliminate potential race condition when probing Simon South
2020-11-30  0:44       ` Simon South
2020-11-30  0:44       ` Simon South
2020-12-10 17:48       ` Thierry Reding [this message]
2020-12-10 17:48         ` Thierry Reding
2020-12-10 17:48         ` Thierry Reding
2020-12-10 21:00         ` Trent Piepho
2020-12-10 21:00           ` Trent Piepho
2020-12-10 21:00           ` Trent Piepho
2020-12-11 10:44           ` Robin Murphy
2020-12-11 10:44             ` Robin Murphy
2020-12-11 10:44             ` Robin Murphy
2020-12-19 20:32         ` Simon South
2020-12-19 20:32           ` Simon South
2020-12-19 20:32           ` Simon South

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=X9JfbpTnfqUVk6iN@ulmo \
    --to=thierry.reding@gmail.com \
    --cc=bbrezillon@kernel.org \
    --cc=heiko@sntech.de \
    --cc=lee.jones@linaro.org \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-pwm@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-rockchip@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=simon@simonsouth.net \
    --cc=tpiepho@gmail.com \
    --cc=u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.