linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] dt-binding: remoteproc: Document generic properties

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: <46d4d351-336c-6d4f-b1b0-243cf3c5d68b@ti.com>
Date:   Fri, 2 Sep 2016 16:45:45 -0500
From:   Suman Anna <s-anna@...com>
To:     Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@...aro.org>,
        Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>
CC:     Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        Ohad Ben-Cohen <ohad@...ery.com>, <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-remoteproc@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] dt-binding: remoteproc: Document generic properties

On 08/12/2016 05:42 PM, Bjorn Andersson wrote:
> On Fri 12 Aug 11:34 PDT 2016, Rob Herring wrote:
> 
>> On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 10:37:02AM -0700, Bjorn Andersson wrote:
>>> This documents the generic properties "rprocs" and "rproc-names", used
>>> for consumer drivers to reference a remoteproc node.
>>
>> How do you intend to use this? I wonder if it would not be better to 
>> expose a remote proc with existing bindings for a particular purpose 
>> (e.g. clocks, resets, etc.) rather than a generic connection. The client 
>> side would have to have specific knowledge as to what functions the 
>> remote proc provides.
>>
> 
> The remoteproc node represents the mechanism and resources needed to
> control the life cycle a co-processor, e.g. loading, booting, shutting
> gown a video encoder/decoder.
> 
> The proposed reference allows a separate thingie to assert control of
> the life cycle of that co-processor.
> 
> 
> I acknowledge that in some cases there is a fine line between what is
> the life cycle management and what is the actual functionality
> implemented by that remote processor. But as the remoteproc mechanism is
> reusable between various use cases I think it makes sense to not describe
> them as one unit.

What's the current state of this patch, not officially acked yet right?

While we are at this, can we agree upon an alias stem name as well, we
can stick to "rproc". Otherwise, I can submit an incremental patch on
top of this along with the code that adds an API to retrieve it for
client users.

regards
Suman