linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/3] SLIMbus: Device management on SLIMbus

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 17 Jun 2015 11:10:09 -0600
From:	Sagar Dharia <sdharia@...eaurora.org>
To:	Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
CC:	gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	bp@...e.de, poeschel@...onage.de, treding@...dia.com,
	gong.chen@...ux.intel.com, andreas.noever@...il.com,
	alan@...ux.intel.com, mathieu.poirier@...aro.org, daniel@...ll.ch,
	oded.gabbay@....com, jkosina@...e.cz, sharon.dvir1@...l.huji.ac.il,
	joe@...ches.com, davem@...emloft.net, james.hogan@...tec.com,
	michael.opdenacker@...e-electrons.com, daniel.thompson@...aro.org,
	nkaje@...eaurora.org, kheitke@...ience.com, mlocke@...eaurora.org,
	agross@...eaurora.org, linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] SLIMbus: Device management on SLIMbus

On 6/17/2015 5:45 AM, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 16, 2015 at 09:22:31AM -0600, Sagar Dharia wrote:
>> On 6/15/2015 4:54 AM, Mark Brown wrote:
>>> On Sat, Jun 13, 2015 at 11:49:16PM -0600, Sagar Dharia wrote:
>>>> +void slim_ctrl_add_boarddevs(struct slim_controller *ctrl)
>>>> +{
>>> Why are these operations split?
>> Some slaves may choose to do expensive operations in their probes (or wait
>> for logical address assignment). That will delay/block controller
>> registration and further HW initialization of the controller.
>> I did not see any downside/side-effect in splitting them. I am open however
>> to have them combined if that's the preferred way.
> How does this resolve the issue?  As far as I can see it just shuffles
> it around so any delay happens later (and possibly not at a convenient
> time), possibly not helping if there's multiple controllers.  If devices
> are doing excessively expensive things in their probe that seems like
> something that we should fix in the drivers.  For LA assignment
> shouldn't we be addressing that by having a callback when the LA is
> assigned?  That will avoid single threading effects and is more like the
> pattern for other buses.  Slimbus isn't particularly unique in this
> regard.
I agree that using the 'device_up' callback (it's called when the device 
has LA assignment) will make sure slaves can keep their probes non-blocking.
I was just trying to accommodate that blocking call by slaves and did 
not realize the downside you now mentioned about multiple-controllers
I will combine these in next patchset.
Thanks
Sagar
>
> Greg, the LA assignment thing here is an example of the issue is an
> example of the pattern I raised a while ago (but never got round to
> coding up handling of) where we have devices on an enumerable bus with
> static registrations.  LA assignment is the end of the hotplug process
> for a Slimbus device but most devices will need something doing to power
> them up so they enumerate.


-- 
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum,
hosted by The Linux Foundation

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/