linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] remoteproc: block premature rproc booting

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:	Mon, 2 Jul 2012 15:25:22 +0300
From:	Ohad Ben-Cohen <ohad@...ery.com>
To:	Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...eaurora.org>,
	Ludovic BARRE <ludovic.barre@...ricsson.com>,
	Loic Pallardy <loic.pallardy@...ricsson.com>,
	Sjur Brændeland <sjur.brandeland@...ricsson.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-omap@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] remoteproc: block premature rproc booting

+ Sjur, Ludovic, Loic

On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 1:57 PM, Ohad Ben-Cohen <ohad@...ery.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 12:23 AM, Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...eaurora.org> wrote:
>> I thought we wanted to allow both calls to proceed in parallel? If we
>> don't care about that
>
> Yeah, I don't think we do.
>
>> then "announcing" it once the firmware is found the first time sounds correct.
>
> I agree. Though this patch may be moot very soon due to:
>
>>> The main reason we kept the get/put interface was to make it easier
>>> for you guys to adopt it, but I've been re-thinking lately whether we
>>> really want that interface. It's a problematic interface with
>>> non-negligible maintenance burden, and the code will be greatly
>>> simplified without it.
>>
>> If nobody in the kernel is using it why keep it?
>
> I was concerned that the non get/put interface might not suit
> everyone, and I planned to wait for another user or two to show up
> before I remove that interface.
>
> Since MSM's PIL is based on a get/put interface, I actually hoped to
> see if you guys can adopt the new interface before we ditch the
> get/put one.
>
>> If MSM needs we can add it back when we move to rproc.
>
> Thanks - that's the kind of feedback I wanted to get.

Sjur, Ludovic, Loic - what remoteproc API are you using today?

We'd like to get rid of the existing get/put interface and instead
have everyone use the boot/shutdown one, just like rpmsg is doing
today.

Are you ok with this change?

Thanks,
Ohad.
--
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/