Re: [PATCH v3 04/15] pwm: lpss: Add range limit check for the base_unit register value - Uwe Kleine-König

From: "Uwe Kleine-König" <u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de>
To: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com>
Cc: linux-pwm@vger.kernel.org,
	intel-gfx <intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>,
	"Rafael J . Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>,
	linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org,
	Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@gmail.com>,
	dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org,
	Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>,
	Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com>,
	Len Brown <lenb@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 04/15] pwm: lpss: Add range limit check for the base_unit register value
Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2020 09:35:54 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200622073554.wf3smq3tvnr6t2xy@taurus.defre.kleine-koenig.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200620121758.14836-5-hdegoede@redhat.com>

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2572 bytes --]

On Sat, Jun 20, 2020 at 02:17:47PM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
> When the user requests a high enough period ns value, then the
> calculations in pwm_lpss_prepare() might result in a base_unit value of 0.
> 
> But according to the data-sheet the way the PWM controller works is that
> each input clock-cycle the base_unit gets added to a N bit counter and
> that counter overflowing determines the PWM output frequency. Adding 0
> to the counter is a no-op. The data-sheet even explicitly states that
> writing 0 to the base_unit bits will result in the PWM outputting a
> continuous 0 signal.
> 
> When the user requestes a low enough period ns value, then the
> calculations in pwm_lpss_prepare() might result in a base_unit value
> which is bigger then base_unit_range - 1. Currently the codes for this
> deals with this by applying a mask:
> 
> 	base_unit &= (base_unit_range - 1);
> 
> But this means that we let the value overflow the range, we throw away the
> higher bits and store whatever value is left in the lower bits into the
> register leading to a random output frequency, rather then clamping the
> output frequency to the highest frequency which the hardware can do.
> 
> This commit fixes both issues by clamping the base_unit value to be
> between 1 and (base_unit_range - 1).
> 
> Fixes: 684309e5043e ("pwm: lpss: Avoid potential overflow of base_unit")
> Signed-off-by: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com>
> ---
> Changes in v3:
> - Change upper limit of clamp to (base_unit_range - 1)
> - Add Fixes tag
> ---
>  drivers/pwm/pwm-lpss.c | 4 +++-
>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/pwm/pwm-lpss.c b/drivers/pwm/pwm-lpss.c
> index 43b1fc634af1..80d0f9c64f9d 100644
> --- a/drivers/pwm/pwm-lpss.c
> +++ b/drivers/pwm/pwm-lpss.c
> @@ -97,6 +97,9 @@ static void pwm_lpss_prepare(struct pwm_lpss_chip *lpwm, struct pwm_device *pwm,
>  	freq *= base_unit_range;
>  
>  	base_unit = DIV_ROUND_CLOSEST_ULL(freq, c);

DIV_ROUND_CLOSEST_ULL is most probably wrong, too. But I didn't spend
the time to actually confirm that.

> +	/* base_unit must not be 0 and we also want to avoid overflowing it */
> +	base_unit = clamp_t(unsigned long long, base_unit, 1,
> +			    base_unit_range - 1);

.get_state seems to handle base_unit == 0 just fine?! Though this
doesn't look right either ...

Best regards
Uwe

-- 
Pengutronix e.K.                           | Uwe Kleine-König            |
Industrial Linux Solutions                 | https://www.pengutronix.de/ |

[-- Attachment #1.2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 160 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel