linux-kernel - Re: [PATCHv8 2/2] mailbox: Introduce framework for mailbox

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: <53C68D64.4010702@arm.com>
Date:	Wed, 16 Jul 2014 15:34:12 +0100
From:	Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>
To:	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
	Jassi Brar <jaswinder.singh@...aro.org>
CC:	Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>,
	"devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"ks.giri@...sung.com" <ks.giri@...sung.com>,
	"ijc+devicetree@...lion.org.uk" <ijc+devicetree@...lion.org.uk>,
	Mark Rutland <Mark.Rutland@....com>,
	"robh+dt@...nel.org" <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
	Pawel Moll <Pawel.Moll@....com>,
	"courtney.cavin@...ymobile.com" <courtney.cavin@...ymobile.com>,
	"mporter@...aro.org" <mporter@...aro.org>,
	"slapdau@...oo.com.au" <slapdau@...oo.com.au>,
	"lftan.linux@...il.com" <lftan.linux@...il.com>,
	"loic.pallardy@...com" <loic.pallardy@...com>,
	"s-anna@...com" <s-anna@...com>,
	"ashwin.chaugule@...aro.org" <ashwin.chaugule@...aro.org>,
	"bjorn@...o.se" <bjorn@...o.se>,
	"patches@...aro.org" <patches@...aro.org>,
	"Mollie.Wu@...fujitsu.com" <Mollie.Wu@...fujitsu.com>,
	"t.takinishi@...fujitsu.com" <t.takinishi@...fujitsu.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv8 2/2] mailbox: Introduce framework for mailbox



On 16/07/14 15:08, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Wednesday 16 July 2014 18:42:22 Jassi Brar wrote:
>> On 16 July 2014 18:39, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de> wrote:
>>> On Wednesday 16 July 2014 18:35:33 Jassi Brar wrote:
>>>> On 16 July 2014 18:15, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de> wrote:
>>>>> On Wednesday 16 July 2014 18:07:04 Jassi Brar wrote:
>>>>>> On 16 July 2014 15:46, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wednesday 16 July 2014 10:40:19 Sudeep Holla wrote:
>>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>>> +Required property:
>>>>>>>>> +- mbox: List of phandle and mailbox channel specifier.
>>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>>> +- mbox-names: List of identifier strings for each mailbox channel
>>>>>>>>> +               required by the client.
>>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> IMO the mailbox names are more associated with the controller channels/
>>>>>>>> mailbox rather than the clients using it. Does it make sense to move
>>>>>>>> this under controller. It also avoid each client replicating the names.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think it would be best to just make the mbox-names property optional,
>>>>>>> like we have for other subsystems.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> A very similar subsystem - DMAEngine also has 'dma-names' as a
>>>>>> required property.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If a client is assigned only 1 mbox in DT, we can do without
>>>>>> mbox-names. But I am not sure what to do if a client needs two or more
>>>>>> differently capable mboxes? Simply allocating in order of mbox request
>>>>>> doesn't seem very robust.
>>>>>
>>>>> Traditionally, these things (regs, interrupts, ...) are just accessed
>>>>> by index. The reason why dmaengine requires the name is that some machines
>>>>> can use multiple DMA engine devices attached to the same request line,
>>>>> so the dmaengine subsystem can pick any of them that has a matching
>>>>> name.
>>>> And also, I think, when a client needs 2 different dma channels, say
>>>> for RX and TX each. The api can't assign the first channel specified
>>>> in 'dmas' property to the first channel request that comes to it,
>>>> unless we assume client driver always requests dma channels in the
>>>> order written in its DT node.  And this is the main reason I see for
>>>> having mbox-names property.
>>>
>>> Most subsystems require passing an explicit index in this case.
>>>
>>>>    If we make mbox-names optional, do we assume client driver must
>>>> request mbox in the order specified in its DT node?
>>>
>>> Correct.
>>>
>> OK. So how about we drop mbox-names altogether and expect client
>> driver to simply provide an index of the mbox needed?
>
> That would be fine with me, but I think a lot of people like
> the idea of identifying things by name, and are used to that
> from the other subsystems.
>
> Maybe you can leave the mbox-names property defined as 'optional'
> in the generic mbox binding but remove the code in Linux? That way
> we can always put it back at a later point without changing the
> binding in an incompatible way.
>
> Individual mailbox clients can mandate specific strings.

This sounds reasonable to me.

Regards,
Sudeep

--
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/