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

Date:	Mon, 20 Jun 2016 16:01:11 +0100
From:	Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>
To:	Neil Armstrong <narmstrong@...libre.com>
Cc:	Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/2] scpi: Add SCPI framework to handle vendors
 variants



On 20/06/16 11:25, Neil Armstrong wrote:
> On 06/06/2016 07:10 PM, Sudeep Holla wrote:

[...]

>>
>> Though this initial version of SCPI is not published, I am sure it is
>> almost same as v1.0 except that the CMD is not part of payload like
>> v1.0. In v1.0 it's part of payload and the mailbox is used just for
>> doorbell mechanism.
> I hoped it would be this simple, but it touches core defines and structure
> that will over complicate the current driver. (i.e. the CMD indexes that differs,
> the CMD size shift, the high and low priority redirection or struct ordering)
>

Ah ok, understood.

>> IMO, we can add some compatible to indicate the pre v1.0 protocol
>> and add the support to the existing driver itself. Let me know your
>> thoughts.
>>
>
> My proposal is :
> - add a registry layer but with only a single scpi instance (no mode OF involved, remove drivers changes)
> - add a scpi_legacy.c driver that only supports the old SCPI like Amlogic and Rockchip, and add a disclaimer for new developed SoCs
> - add your extension capability to handle Amlogic's and Rockchip's extended commands
>
> If you agree, I'll post a new patchset for review with these changes.
>

Yes that sounds better. Also post along with the users to make it easy 
to review even if they are not completely ready for upstream.

-- 
Regards,
Sudeep