linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v7 1/4] Documentation: dt: add common bindings for hwspinlock

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAJAp7OjvFj6RL=Z=SQ6XYzo4qd-Bhe3SYV9-JAGS5SzjJ6R5xg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Mon, 16 Feb 2015 12:30:37 -0800
From:	Bjorn Andersson <bjorn@...o.se>
To:	Ohad Ben-Cohen <ohad@...ery.com>
Cc:	Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
	Rob Herring <robherring2@...il.com>,
	Suman Anna <s-anna@...com>, Kumar Gala <galak@...eaurora.org>,
	"devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-omap@...r.kernel.org" <linux-omap@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
	Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 1/4] Documentation: dt: add common bindings for hwspinlock

On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 9:41 PM, Ohad Ben-Cohen <ohad@...ery.com> wrote:
[..]
> Since the existence of several hwblocks is still fictional (Bjorn,
> please confirm too?), we may prefer to introduce changes to support it
> only when it shows up; it all depends on the amount of changes needed.
> Suman, care to take a look please?
>

It turns out that the Qualcomm platforms have two additional "remote
spinlock" mechanisms - both using shared memory.

On most platforms only 1 (out of these 3) is actually consumed, but
e.g. the older msm7x30 uses 2 of them (SMEM and DAL). Due to its age I
don't think it's on anyones todo list to actually support this
platform as of today; but it's out there.


None of these hwlocks are allocated dynamically, so if needed a
dynamic base_id (-1 like other frameworks) would be a acceptable
solution - and can easily be implemented when we need it.

Regards,
Bjorn
--
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/