linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 6/6] atmel

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]

Message-ID: <20080123134553.144ca487@dhcp-252-066.norway.atmel.com>
Date:	Wed, 23 Jan 2008 13:45:53 +0100
From:	Haavard Skinnemoen <hskinnemoen@...el.com>
To:	Marc Pignat <marc.pignat@...s.ch>
Cc:	Andrew Victor <linux@...im.org.za>, kernel@...32linux.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Remy Bohmer <linux@...mer.net>,
	Chip Coldwell <coldwell@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/6] atmel_serial: Add DMA support

On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 13:30:32 +0100
Marc Pignat <marc.pignat@...s.ch> wrote:
> On Wednesday 23 January 2008, Haavard Skinnemoen wrote:
> > Right. Does that mean I shouldn't Cc it on patches?
> extract from the linux-arm-kernel 'Mailing List Etiquette':
>              10. Cross-posting between linux-arm* lists and other lists. [[40]rmk]
>                 Please do not do this. Subscribers on other lists may not be
>                 subscribed to the linux-arm lists, so when they try to reply to
>                 such a message, they will receive a bounce. This is deemed by
>                 others to be rude behaviour on the part of the person who
>                 originally cross-posted.

Ok, sorry about that.

> > Dunno. I suppose the PDC_BUFFER_SIZE and/or PDC_RX_TIMEOUT definitions
> > needs to be revisited? Chip?
> I just think there is no need to warn, even if definitions are sub-optimal.

I agree, so I replaced it with a comment.

> > I don't really understand why the buffer size depends on the cache line
> > size either. Why don't we just set it to something nice and large, like
> > 512 (actually 1024 since there are two buffers), and be done with it?
> Probably for dma safety/performance, The PDC buffer start should be aligned to
> cache line, and the size be a multiple of cache line size.

Ok, but then any power of two larger than the cache line size should be
fine, assuming kmalloc() returns a properly aligned buffer.

Other than that, I can't see any reason why a platform with 64 byte
cache lines should need larger buffers than one with 32 byte cache
lines.

> > And while we're at it, might as well move the SUPPORT_PDC definition
> > into Kconfig where it belongs...
> For me there is no need to disbable pdc support once working. PDC can be
> enabled/disabled in the board setup code. -> simply remove this definition.

There are still issues with the DMA code that the PIO code doesn't
have. So I think it should be selectable until we can sort out the
error/break handling.

Haavard
--
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/