linux-kernel - Re: [PATCHv3 00/14] drivers: mailbox: framework creation

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]

Message-ID: <517E9284.1010209@ti.com>
Date:	Mon, 29 Apr 2013 10:32:20 -0500
From:	Suman Anna <s-anna@...com>
To:	Andy Green <andy.green@...aro.org>
CC:	Jassi Brar <jaswinder.singh@...aro.org>,
	Loic PALLARDY <loic.pallardy@...com>,
	Jassi Brar <jassisinghbrar@...il.com>,
	"Ohad Ben-Cohen (ohad@...ery.com)" <ohad@...ery.com>,
	Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
	Russell King <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
	Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"Omar Ramirez Luna (omar.ramirez@...itl.com)" 
	<omar.ramirez@...itl.com>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv3 00/14] drivers: mailbox: framework creation

Hi Andy,

On 04/26/2013 08:48 PM, Andy Green wrote:
> On 27/04/13 09:04, the mail apparently from Suman Anna included:
> 
> Hi Suman -
> 
>> Even though both the scenarios look very similar, I believe there are
>> some slight differences. All the devices belonging to a controller may
>> not be of the same type (meaning, intended towards the same remote or be
>> used interchangeably with one another). It is definitely possible if you
>> have a similar scenario to the DMA physical channels and your remote
>> rx interrupt can identify the device/channel to process. This would be
>> very much dependent on the architecture of a controller. The particular
>> example that I have in mind is s/w clients between the same set of
>> remote and host entities using the same device - the send part is anyway
>> arbitrated by the controller, and the same received message can be
>> delivered to the clients, with the clients making the decision whether
>> the packet belongs to them or not. I agree that all remote-ends will not
>> be able to cope up intermixed requests, but isn't this again a
>> controller architecture dependent?
> 
> Maybe it's helpful to describe our situation more concretely, because
> the problem is not coming from "the architecture of the [mailbox]
> controller".

Thanks for explaining the usecase. I do think that similar approaches
will become more common (TI AM335 has something similar as well - though
it is related to suspend). The right word should have been "controller
functional integration", I said it as s/w architecture or usage model.
In your case, it is clear that you need time-shared exclusive access,
whereas I am talking about simultaneous-shared usecases.

> 
> In the SoC we work on clock and subsystem power control registers, a
> serial bus, and some other assets are not directly accessible from
> Linux.  We must ask a coprocessor to operate these for us, using the
> mailbox.
> 
> So at any one time, the clock driver or voltagedomain driver for the SoC
> may want to own the mailbox and perform one or more operations over it
> synchronously, in some cases on the remote side involving transactions
> on a serial bus.  We don't want other transactions to be occurring while
> we wait for the serial bus to complete what the driver who started that
> asked for, for example.
> 
> We can cope with this by having an outer driver mediate access to the
> mailbox.  But then there are multiple sync primitives like completions
> and notifiers per operation, because your core already does this.
> 
> In short the FIFO + sync operations approach your core implements
> doesn't fit our use case.  That can be our problem, in which case we'll
> live with the outer mediation driver on top of the mailbox, or it can be
> a sign the fixed choice of FIFO + sync operations in your core did not
> quite hit the nail on the head to really model all the facets of legit
> mailbox usage.

I agree that the current code doesn't address this usage. The changes
(should have them ready in the next couple of days) I am working on
actually makes this conditional.

> 
> At least, this real scenario should be interesting to think about before
> rejecting ^^

No, I didn't reject anything, we are dealing with two contrasting
usecases dependent on the functional integration, and we have to find a
middle ground.

regards
Suman

--
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/