linux-kernel - Re: Using the mailbox subsystem for plain doorbells?

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: <CABb+yY1=LhKLAHLw5Dwouf4L=w=B3=38i9WDDYyCSVYf5fC1SQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Tue, 10 May 2016 21:40:48 +0530
From:	Jassi Brar <jassisinghbrar@...il.com>
To:	Stephen Warren <swarren@...dotorg.org>
Cc:	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Joseph Lo <josephl@...dia.com>
Subject: Re: Using the mailbox subsystem for plain doorbells?

On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 9:26 PM, Stephen Warren <swarren@...dotorg.org> wrote:
> On 05/09/2016 09:29 PM, Jassi Brar wrote:
>
>> Some controllers need a mask/list of destination cpus, to which the
>> irq is raised, written to some 'data' register. You too probably need
>> to program the destination "id" in the controller? Maybe that should
>> be done in send_data().
>
>
> In this case, each mailbox communicates with a different remote CPU, and
> there's a separate register to communicate with each remote CPU. So,
> send_data() completely ignores the data parameter since everything is
> derived from the mailbox's identity.
>
Yes, that is ok. For example, mailbox-sti.c does that.

Cheers!