From: sashiko-bot@kernel.org
To: "Jason Yang" <jason98166@gmail.com>
Cc: linux-phy@lists.infradead.org, conor+dt@kernel.org,
neil.armstrong@linaro.org, vkoul@kernel.org, robh@kernel.org,
olteanv@gmail.com, devicetree@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] phy: rockchip-samsung-dcphy: add MIPI D-PHY receiver support
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2026 10:57:24 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20260721105725.547CD1F000E9@smtp.kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260721-dcphy-rx-v1-v1-4-4fc83c0ccac9@gmail.com>
Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 4 potential issue(s) to consider:
New issues:
- [High] The RX power-on sequence fails to toggle the `apb_rst` reset line, potentially leaving the shared APB bus interface uninitialized if the RX direction is powered on before TX.
- [High] If `samsung_mipi_dphy_rx_lane_enable()` fails (e.g., due to a PHY_READY timeout), it returns an error but leaves the `PHY_ENABLE` bits set in the PHY registers and unconditionally deasserts the `s_phy_rst` core reset.
- [High] The `lanes` configuration field is shared between TX and RX, leading to state corruption and incorrect lane cleanup if both directions are configured independently.
Pre-existing issues:
- [High] Concurrent power_on calls for TX and RX can race due to a time-of-check to time-of-use (TOCTOU) vulnerability on the unprotected `peer->power_count`.
--
--- Patch [4]: [PATCH 4/4] phy: rockchip-samsung-dcphy: add MIPI D-PHY receiver support ---
commit 1a7ff981a5098deb181df94fdb6e07f8dc4040a9
Author: Jason Yang <jason98166@gmail.com>
phy: rockchip-samsung-dcphy: add MIPI D-PHY receiver support
This commit implements the receiver (CSI) direction of the D-PHY. It adds the
RX register layout, the HS-frequency settle table, and hooks the receiver
bring-up and teardown into the per-direction power and configuration paths.
> diff --git a/drivers/phy/rockchip/phy-rockchip-samsung-dcphy.c b/drivers/phy/rockchip/phy-rockchip-samsung-dcphy.c
> --- a/drivers/phy/rockchip/phy-rockchip-samsung-dcphy.c
> +++ b/drivers/phy/rockchip/phy-rockchip-samsung-dcphy.c
[ ... ]
> +static int samsung_mipi_dphy_rx_lane_enable(struct samsung_mipi_dcphy *samsung)
> +{
> + u32 sts;
> + int ret, i;
> +
> + regmap_update_bits(samsung->regmap, DPHY_SC_GNR_CON0, PHY_ENABLE, PHY_ENABLE);
> + for (i = 0; i < samsung->lanes; i++)
> + regmap_update_bits(samsung->regmap, rx_data_lane_gnr_con0[i],
> + PHY_ENABLE, PHY_ENABLE);
> +
> + ret = regmap_read_poll_timeout(samsung->regmap, DPHY_SC_GNR_CON0,
> + sts, sts & PHY_READY, 200, 4000);
> + if (ret) {
> + dev_err(samsung->dev, "RX clock lane not ready\n");
> + return ret;
> + }
[Severity: High]
If regmap_read_poll_timeout() fails here, do we leak the previously set
PHY_ENABLE bits?
Returning early leaves the PHY_ENABLE bits set in the PHY registers.
The caller catches the error and propagates it, meaning the framework
will not call power_off() to clean up. On subsequent retries, writing
PHY_ENABLE to a register where it is already 1 will fail to produce the
0 -> 1 edge transition required by the PHY state machine to start, breaking
future attempts to initialize the RX lanes.
[ ... ]
> +static int samsung_mipi_dphy_rx_power_on(struct samsung_mipi_dcphy *samsung,
> + struct phy *peer)
> +{
> + bool first = peer->power_count == 0;
[Severity: High]
This is a pre-existing issue, but is it safe to rely on peer->power_count
here to determine if shared initialization is needed?
The PHY core framework increments phy->power_count outside the driver's lock,
only after the power_on() callback returns. If Thread A (RX) and Thread B
(TX) call phy_power_on() concurrently:
Thread A configures RX, drops samsung->lock, but is preempted before
rx_phy->power_count is incremented.
Thread B acquires samsung->lock, sees rx_phy->power_count is still 0, and
executes its 'first' initialization sequence.
For TX, this involves explicitly asserting the shared APB bus reset
(apb_rst), which would wipe out the entire RX configuration Thread A just
applied. Should the driver track the initialization state internally instead
of relying on power_count?
> + int ret;
> +
> + if (!samsung->hs_clk_rate)
> + return -EINVAL;
> +
> + reset_control_assert(samsung->s_phy_rst);
> +
> + if (first)
> + samsung_mipi_dcphy_bias_block_enable(samsung);
[Severity: High]
If the PHY is used in a receive-first or receive-only role, does this sequence
omit the apb_rst hardware initialization for the shared APB bus?
Looking at the TX power-on sequence, it toggles apb_rst when first is true to
ensure the shared APB bus interface is properly initialized. If RX powers on
first, the apb_rst toggle is skipped here, and a subsequent TX power-on will
see first == false and also skip it. Can this leave the shared APB bus
interface uninitialized and potentially cause system hangs during regmap
accesses?
> + samsung_mipi_dphy_rx_config_common(samsung);
> +
> + ret = samsung_mipi_dphy_rx_config_settle(samsung);
> + if (ret)
> + goto out_deassert;
> +
> + ret = samsung_mipi_dphy_rx_lane_enable(samsung);
> +
> +out_deassert:
> + reset_control_deassert(samsung->s_phy_rst);
> +
> + return ret;
> +}
[Severity: High]
Does this unconditionally commit the leaked PHY_ENABLE state to the hardware?
If samsung_mipi_dphy_rx_lane_enable() fails due to the timeout mentioned
earlier, it drops through to here and deasserts s_phy_rst. Combined with the
missing PHY_ENABLE cleanup, this commits the broken hardware state.
[ ... ]
> @@ -1525,13 +1831,17 @@ static int samsung_mipi_dcphy_configure(struct phy *phy,
> struct samsung_mipi_dcphy *samsung = pd->parent;
> unsigned long long target_rate = opts->mipi_dphy.hs_clk_rate;
>
> + mutex_lock(&samsung->lock);
> samsung->lanes = opts->mipi_dphy.lanes > 4 ? 4 : opts->mipi_dphy.lanes;
[Severity: High]
Does sharing the samsung->lanes variable between TX and RX lead to state
corruption?
Since the driver models TX and RX as two independent PHY instances, either
instance will blindly overwrite samsung->lanes here. If a consumer configures
TX with 4 lanes and a second consumer configures RX with 2 lanes,
samsung->lanes becomes 2. A subsequent TX power_off() will read this state
and only disable 2 lanes, leaking the other 2 active TX lanes. Should lanes
be tracked per-direction?
> - if (pd->dir == RK_DCPHY_DIR_RX)
> - return -EOPNOTSUPP;
> -
> - samsung_mipi_dcphy_pll_calc_rate(samsung, target_rate);
> - opts->mipi_dphy.hs_clk_rate = samsung->pll.rate;
> + if (pd->dir == RK_DCPHY_DIR_RX) {
> + /* The sensor supplies the link clock; the PLL stays off. */
> + samsung->hs_clk_rate = target_rate;
> + } else {
> + samsung_mipi_dcphy_pll_calc_rate(samsung, target_rate);
> + opts->mipi_dphy.hs_clk_rate = samsung->pll.rate;
> + }
> + mutex_unlock(&samsung->lock);
--
Sashiko AI review · https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260721-dcphy-rx-v1-v1-0-4fc83c0ccac9@gmail.com?part=4
--
linux-phy mailing list
linux-phy@lists.infradead.org
https://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-phy
prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-07-21 10:57 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-07-21 10:35 [PATCH 0/4] phy: rockchip-samsung-dcphy: support the D-PHY receiver direction Jason Yang via B4 Relay
2026-07-21 10:35 ` [PATCH 1/4] dt-bindings: phy: rockchip,rk3588-mipi-dcphy: support per-direction phys Jason Yang via B4 Relay
2026-07-21 10:44 ` sashiko-bot
2026-07-21 10:35 ` [PATCH 2/4] phy: rockchip-samsung-dcphy: factor MIPI D-PHY power on/off into helpers Jason Yang via B4 Relay
2026-07-21 10:35 ` [PATCH 3/4] phy: rockchip-samsung-dcphy: model TX and RX as separate PHYs Jason Yang via B4 Relay
2026-07-21 10:44 ` sashiko-bot
2026-07-21 10:35 ` [PATCH 4/4] phy: rockchip-samsung-dcphy: add MIPI D-PHY receiver support Jason Yang via B4 Relay
2026-07-21 10:57 ` sashiko-bot [this message]
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=20260721105725.547CD1F000E9@smtp.kernel.org \
--to=sashiko-bot@kernel.org \
--cc=conor+dt@kernel.org \
--cc=devicetree@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=jason98166@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-phy@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=neil.armstrong@linaro.org \
--cc=olteanv@gmail.com \
--cc=robh@kernel.org \
--cc=sashiko-reviews@lists.linux.dev \
--cc=vkoul@kernel.org \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox