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]

Date:   Thu, 8 Sep 2016 11:50:32 -0500
From:   Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>
To:     Suman Anna <s-anna@...com>
Cc:     Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@...aro.org>,
        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 Fri, Sep 02, 2016 at 04:45:45PM -0500, Suman Anna wrote:
> 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?

Bjorn and I have discussed some, but probably needs more discussion. 
This binding alone is simple enough, but I want to understand better how 
it will be used and digesting all the QCom h/w is not simple.

> 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.

Any alias for this will be NAKed. My position on aliases is well 
documented.

Rob