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  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]
Date:	Tue, 18 Feb 2014 15:32:37 -0600
From:	Kumar Gala <galak@...eaurora.org>
To:	Jassi Brar <jassisinghbrar@...il.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, s-anna@...com,
	tony@...mide.com, omar.ramirez@...itl.com, loic.pallardy@...com,
	lftan.linux@...il.com, slapdau@...oo.com.au,
	courtney.cavin@...ymobile.com, rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com,
	Jassi Brar <jaswinder.singh@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv3 2/6] mailbox: Introduce a new common API


On Feb 15, 2014, at 12:25 PM, Jassi Brar <jassisinghbrar@...il.com> wrote:

> Introduce common framework for client/protocol drivers and
> controller drivers of Inter-Processor-Communication (IPC).
> 
> Client driver developers should have a look at
> include/linux/mailbox_client.h to understand the part of
> the API exposed to client drivers.
> Similarly controller driver developers should have a look
> at include/linux/mailbox_controller.h
> 
> Signed-off-by: Jassi Brar <jaswinder.singh@...aro.org>
> ---
> drivers/mailbox/Makefile           |   4 +
> drivers/mailbox/mailbox.c          | 534 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> include/linux/mailbox.h            |  17 ++
> include/linux/mailbox_client.h     |  87 ++++++
> include/linux/mailbox_controller.h | 102 +++++++
> 5 files changed, 744 insertions(+)
> create mode 100644 drivers/mailbox/mailbox.c
> create mode 100644 include/linux/mailbox.h
> create mode 100644 include/linux/mailbox_client.h
> create mode 100644 include/linux/mailbox_controller.h

What’s the intent of trying to provide a unified interface here?  I’m trying to understand what benefit we are going for, I get possibly wanting something to reduce duplication in drivers (help functions, library, etc).  But do we really see benefit in a common interface for clients?

Are we really going to mix a OMAP mailbox controller with a client developed for some other SoC vendor?

- k

-- 
Employee of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc.
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, hosted by The Linux Foundation

--
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/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists