linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 00/61] dmaengine: Implement generic slave capabilities retrieval

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, 8 Dec 2014 15:31:25 +0100
From:	Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@...e-electrons.com>
To:	Vinod Koul <vinod.koul@...el.com>
Cc:	dmaengine@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
	Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@...asonboard.com>,
	Antoine Ténart <antoine@...e-electrons.com>,
	Russell King <linux@....linux.org.uk>, lars@...afoo.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 00/61] dmaengine: Implement generic slave capabilities
 retrieval

On Mon, Dec 08, 2014 at 07:00:47PM +0530, Vinod Koul wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 08, 2014 at 10:32:47AM +0100, Ludovic Desroches wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 08, 2014 at 11:47:46AM +0530, Vinod Koul wrote:
> > > On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 02:41:54PM +0100, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> > > > Hi,
> > > > 
> > > > As we discussed a couple of weeks ago, this is the third attempt at
> > > > creating a generic behaviour for slave capabilities retrieval so that
> > > > generic layers using dmaengine can actually rely on that.
> > > > 
> > > > That has been done mostly through two steps: by moving out the
> > > > sub-commands of the device_control callback, so that the dmaengine
> > > > core can then infer from that wether a sub-command is implemented, and
> > > > then by moving the slave properties, such as the supported buswidth,
> > > > to the structure dma_device itself.
> > > 
> > > Okay managed to get this done. Apart from the two issues identified didn't
> > > find anything so applied and pushed to a branch
> > > "topic/slave_caps_device_control_fix"
> > > 
> > > Today did some compile tests and found few warnings, were trivial but I
> > > am worried about the testing of this code. Has anyone tested this, if so
> > > which platforms are covered Since I pushed base branch last night, Feng's
> > > bot covered it and all was OK. Looks like Feng's bot doesn't have wide
> > > coverage of arm platforms, wasn't there one run by arm guys which tries to
> > > test and boot, if so can we get this tested there please.
> > 
> > Tested with your branch on sama5d3 and sama5d4 so at_hdmac and at xdmac.
> > 
> > I have also sent some patches based on Maxime's series for at_xdmac.

I did the development on the Allwinner A31 (sun6i driver). So that's
tested too.

Thanks to Ludovic for his testing.

> Anymore voluteers? I am looking at omap, mxs, tegra ones (these had
> issues)

Since these were compile time issues (and trivial one). From a
functional point of view, beside the warning introduced, this won't
change anything.

And even if it does, we have a full bug-fixing window to take care of
that.

Maxime

-- 
Maxime Ripard, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering
http://free-electrons.com

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (820 bytes)