linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 0/2] scpi: Add SCPI framework to handle vendors variants

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:	Wed, 1 Jun 2016 17:34:33 +0100
From:	Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>
To:	Kevin Hilman <khilman@...libre.com>
Cc:	heiko@...ech.de, Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>,
	Neil Armstrong <narmstrong@...libre.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/2] scpi: Add SCPI framework to handle vendors
 variants



On 01/06/16 17:30, Kevin Hilman wrote:
> [ + Heiko, who may know about the Rockchip implementation ]
>
> Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com> writes:
>
>> On 30/05/16 09:30, Neil Armstrong wrote:
>>> On 05/27/2016 10:17 AM, Neil Armstrong wrote:
>>
>> [..]
>>
>>>
>>> While looking for other ARMv8 based platform, I found that the RK3368
>>> platform has the same SCPI implementation as Amlogic.
>>>
>>> They extended it with DDR, system and thermal commands.
>>>
>>> Look at :
>>> https://github.com/geekboxzone/mmallow_kernel/blob/geekbox/drivers/mailbox/scpi_cmd.h
>>>
>>> https://github.com/geekboxzone/mmallow_kernel/blob/geekbox/drivers/mailbox/scpi_protocol.c
>>>
>>
>>
>>> So the SCPI must have a framework to allow different protocol
>>> versions, and must allow command extension. Grouping Rockchip and
>>> Amlogic should be done, thus needing a generic name like vendor_scpi
>>> or with a version.
>>>
>>
>> Makes sense. I understand the need to reuse and I need a bit of time to
>> have a look at the code(both Amlogic one's you have pointed out and the
>> Rockchip one) in detail to see what's the best way to proceed. I will
>> have a look at this later this week and get back to you.
>>
>>> Sudeep, could you somehow find out which version of the protocol
>>> AmLogic and Rockchip based their SCPI development ?
>>>
>>
>> Yes I tried checking with Rockchip but didn't get a response. But my
>> guess is that it was some preliminary unpublished version of SCPI
>> unfortunately :(
>
> And if one partner did that, probably everyone else did as well, but
> this being the ARM universe, they all did it slightly differently. :(
>

No doubt :)

> We know from experience, that this happens all the time in the absence
> of a clear standard, so this framework will need to be extended to be
> useful.
>

Completely agreed, better to gather all the information possible before
we proceed. I will try to check if I can get hold of old version
internally in the meantime.

-- 
Regards,
Sudeep