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
| ||
|
Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2015 10:43:54 +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 8:56 PM, Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org> wrote: > On Wed, 18 Mar 2015, Jassi Brar wrote: >> >> > + 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? > > That's going to happen regardless, since these bindings are already in > use internally. Mainline (i.e. v4.0+) isn't going to be used in > products for years to come, so we have a lot of time until any new > bindings become ABI. > I thought time starts from upstream. It doesn't seem right to knowingly introduce a binding that we are going to break in coming weeks. For this reason, it needs ACK from some DT maintainer. >> >> > + * 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 > > I do not. I planned on sharing the main header with with client > also. > > But I guess by your reaction you suggest having a teeny client header > as the best way forward then. > Yes, please. And also no header that's included by exactly one file. -- 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