linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/3] mailbox: Add support for ST's Mailbox IP

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: <CABb+yY2HwZn3VSvZ4iVfWE8GrsLDA6Tx_V2HZiOBvJb9UHY2Mg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Wed, 18 Mar 2015 19:02:07 +0530
From:	Jassi Brar <jassisinghbrar@...il.com>
To:	Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>
Cc:	Jassi Brar <jaswinder.singh@...aro.org>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
	lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Devicetree List <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
	kernel@...inux.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] mailbox: Add support for ST's Mailbox IP

On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 6:42 PM, Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org> wrote:
> On Wed, 04 Mar 2015, Jassi Brar wrote:
>
>> > +
>> > +       if ((!data) || (!sti_mbox_chan_is_tx(mbox)))
>> >
>> nit: too much protection.
>
> What makes you think that?
>
 Usually we write
               if (!data || !sti_mbox_chan_is_tx(mbox))


>> > +                       mbox->irq = irq_create_mapping(mbinst->irq_domain,
>> > +                                                      mbox->rx_id);
>> >
>> simply assigning same IRQ to all controller DT nodes and using
>> IRQF_SHARED for the common handler, wouldn't work?
>
> I do have intentions to simplify this driver somewhat, but that will
> take some time as it will require a great deal of consultation and
> testing from the ST side.  This is the current internal implementation
> which is used in the wild and has been fully tested.  If you'll allow
> me to conduct my adaptions subsequently we can have full history and a
> possible reversion plan if anything untoward take place i.e. I mess
> something up.
>
OK, but wouldn't that break the bindings of this driver when you
eventually do that?

>> > + * struct sti_mbox_msg - sti mailbox message description
>> > + * @dsize:             data payload size
>> > + * @pdata:             message data payload
>> > + */
>> > +struct sti_mbox_msg {
>> > +       u32             dsize;
>> > +       u8              *pdata;
>> > +};
>> >
>> There isn't any client driver in this patchset to tell exactly, but it
>> seems the header could be split into one shared between mailbox
>> clients and provider and another internal to client/provider ?
>
> I believe only the above will be required by the client.  Seems silly
> to create a client specific header just for that, don't you think?
>
Do you mean to have copies of the structure in controller and client driver? :O

-Jassi
--
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/