linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] firmware: arm_scpi: Add hardware dependencies

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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Date:   Wed, 25 Jan 2017 14:20:53 +0000
From:   Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>
To:     Jean Delvare <jdelvare@...e.de>
Cc:     Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "Jon Medhurst (Tixy)" <tixy@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] firmware: arm_scpi: Add hardware dependencies



On 25/01/17 14:14, Jean Delvare wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Jan 2017 13:56:23 +0000, Sudeep Holla wrote:
>> On 25/01/17 13:50, Jean Delvare wrote:
>>> On Wed, 25 Jan 2017 13:38:47 +0000, Sudeep Holla wrote:
>>>> On 25/01/17 13:32, Jean Delvare wrote:
>>>>> With a name like that, I assume that the ARM SCPI protocol is only
>>>>> useful on the ARM architectures.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Jean Delvare <jdelvare@...e.de>
>>>>> Fixes: 8f1498c03d15 ("firmware: arm_scpi: make it depend on MAILBOX instead of")
>>>>> Cc: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>
>>>>> Cc: Jon Medhurst (Tixy) <tixy@...aro.org>
>>>>> ---
>>>>> Please correct me if I'm wrong.
>>>>
>>>> I won't say you are wrong but the reason why it's named arm_scpi is
>>>> because the protocol was developed by ARM. It doesnn't mean only
>>>> ARM/ARM64 needs to use it, it can be used on any architecture for
>>>> inter-processor communication using any communication technique
>>>> (currently mailbox is the only supported in the driver)
>>>
>>> OK, thanks for the clarification. In practice, what other architectures
>>> are using it?
>>
>> None, hence I didn't say you are wrong ;). I am fine having the check if
>> it breaks for any other architecture with COMPILE_TEST.
> 
> Not sure what you mean here... The purpose of COMPILE_TEST is to allow
> limiting the scope of a driver withing hurting the build test coverage.
> 

No I agree with adding COMPILE_TEST just not ARM || ARM64

>> Also you have mentioned it fixes 8f1498c03d15, have you seen any
>> regression with that commit ? If so, details in the commit would be
>> good.
> 
> Before 8f1498c03d15, the dependency on ARM_MHU made the driver only
> visible on ARM kernels. Since 8f1498c03d15, the driver is proposed to
> all, which I think isn't correct. 

I disagree here. It depends on mailbox as we use mailbox API. And it is
now used on AmLogic Meson series of SoC. So it *is correct*.

> In that sense my proposed patch is
> fixing a (user-friendliness) regression. But nothing serious.
> 

Can you elaborate ? What's that *user-friendliness regression* ?
build/boot/... ? I just need more details.

-- 
Regards,
Sudeep