[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200224233759.GC30288@infradead.org>
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2020 15:37:59 -0800
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To: Stanley Chu <stanley.chu@...iatek.com>
Cc: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...nel.org>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Satya Tangirala <satyat@...gle.com>,
linux-block@...r.kernel.org, linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org,
linux-fscrypt@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-f2fs-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org,
Barani Muthukumaran <bmuthuku@....qualcomm.com>,
Kuohong Wang <kuohong.wang@...iatek.com>,
Kim Boojin <boojin.kim@...sung.com>,
Ladvine D Almeida <Ladvine.DAlmeida@...opsys.com>,
Parshuram Raju Thombare <pthombar@...ence.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 6/9] scsi: ufs: Add inline encryption support to UFS
On Sun, Feb 23, 2020 at 09:47:36PM +0800, Stanley Chu wrote:
> Yes, MediaTek is keeping work closely with inline encryption patch sets.
> Currently the v6 version can work well (without
> UFSHCD_QUIRK_BROKEN_CRYPTO quirk) at least in our MT6779 SoC platform
> which basic SoC support and some other peripheral drivers are under
> upstreaming as below link,
>
> https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-mediatek/list/?state=%
> 2A&q=6779&series=&submitter=&delegate=&archive=both
>
> The integration with inline encryption patch set needs to patch
> ufs-mediatek and patches are ready in downstream. We plan to upstream
> them soon after inline encryption patch sets get merged.
What amount of support do you need in ufs-mediatek? It seems like
pretty much every ufs low-level driver needs some kind of specific
support now, right? I wonder if we should instead opt into the support
instead of all the quirking here.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists