Hi Frank,
Moving to a new for loop makes sense. Let me know when you have a patch
and I'll be glad to test it on my board. I do also wonder if this may
have contributed to some of the HDMI issues seen in the other thread.
Best,
Robert
> Hi Robert,
>
> I'm truly sorry for the trouble the patch has caused you and for my late
> reply!
>
> On 2024-06-14 at 23:52:08 +0000, "Pafford, Robert J." <pafford.9@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> The Allwinner SoC's typically have an upper and lower limit for their
>>> clocks' rates. Up until now, support for that has been implemented
>>> separately for each clock type.
>>>
>>> Implement that functionality in the sunxi-ng's common part making use of
>>> the CCF rate liming capabilities, so that it is available for all clock
>>> types.
>>>
>>> Suggested-by: Maxime Ripard <mripard@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>> Signed-off-by: Frank Oltmanns <frank@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> Cc: stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> ---
>>> drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_common.c | 19 +++++++++++++++++++
>>> drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_common.h | 3 +++
>>> 2 files changed, 22 insertions(+)
>>
>> This patch appears to cause a buffer under-read bug due to the call to 'hw_to_ccu_common', which assumes all entries
>> in the desc->hw_clocks->hws array are contained in ccu_common structs.
>>
>> However, not all clocks in the array are contained in ccu_common structs. For example, as part
>> of the "sun20i-d1-ccu" driver, the "pll-video0" clock holds the 'clk_hw' struct inside of a 'clk_fixed_factor' struct,
>> as it is a fixed factor clock based on the "pll-video0-4x" clock, created with the CLK_FIXED_FACTOR_HWS macro.
>> This results in undefined behavior as the hw_to_ccu_common returns an invalid pointer referencing memory before the
>> 'clk_fixed_factor' struct.
>>
>
> Great catch! At first glance, it seems to me that calling
> clk_hw_set_rate_range() in sunxi_ccu_probe() should not have happenend
> in the loop that iterates over the hw_clks.
>
> Instead we should add one more loop that iterates over the ccu_clks.
> Note, that there is already one such loop but, unfortunately, we can't
> use that as it happens before the hw_clks loop and we can only call
> clk_hw_set_rate_range() after the hw_clk has been registered.
>
> Hence, I propose to move the offending code to a new loop:
> for (i = 0; i < desc->num_ccu_clks; i++) {
> struct ccu_common *cclk = desc->ccu_clks[i];
>
> if (!cclk)
> continue;
>
> if (cclk->max_rate)
> clk_hw_set_rate_range(&cclk->hw, common->min_rate,
> common->max_rate);
> else
> WARN(cclk->min_rate,
> "No max_rate, ignoring min_rate of clock %d - %s\n",
> i, cclk->hw.init->name);
> }
>
> I haven't tested (or even compiled) the above, but I'll test and send a
> patch within the next few days for you to test.
>
> Thanks again,
> Frank
>
>>
>> I have attached kernel warnings from a system based on the "sun8i-t113s.dtsi" device tree, where the memory contains
>> a non-zero value for the min-rate but a zero value for the max-rate, triggering the "No max_rate, ignoring min_rate"
>> warning in the 'sunxi_ccu_probe' function.
>>
>> [...]
