linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] dmaengine: tegra210-adma: Add memcpy support

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:   Tue, 13 Sep 2016 09:52:43 +0100
From:   Jon Hunter <jonathanh@...dia.com>
To:     Nicolin Chen <nicoleotsuka@...il.com>
CC:     <vinod.koul@...el.com>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        <linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org>, <dmaengine@...r.kernel.org>,
        <gnurou@...il.com>, <thierry.reding@...il.com>,
        <swarren@...dotorg.org>, <ldewangan@...dia.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] dmaengine: tegra210-adma: Add memcpy support


On 12/09/16 21:50, Nicolin Chen wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 03:34:08PM +0100, Jon Hunter wrote:
> 
>>> Sorry. I forgot to mention that the TEGRA210_CLK_APE_SLCG_OVR
>>> clock is required for the tests. So I cherry-picked 2 patches
>>> from your audio branch to the linux-next:
>>> 	clk: tegra210: Add SLCG override gate clocks
>>> 	ARM64: tegra: DT: Add SLCG clock for AUD
> 
>>> And it seems that you've submitted that patch once but it got
>>> hold because it wasn't so useful at that time?
> 
>> Yes it was not being used at the time. It is on my list of things to do
>> and we need to revisit it. There was some discussion on the best way to
>> handle these clocks from a client perspective. I am not sure we came to
>> a conclusion on this. I need to find some time to look at this.
> 
> I may also take a look to speed it up. Yet, putting that clock
> aside, how about this patch then? I think we don't need to wait
> for that clock patch in order to announce that we support this
> now on a specific SoC but can just treat it as a new feature of
> a DMA controller, which sounds quite plausible to me since the
> ADMA module is now being disabled in all dts files of existing
> SoCs -- There have to be some local changes in any way so as to
> test it with the mainline code.

I am fine with the changes. However, I am wondering if we should sort
out this clock business first just in case someone tries to use this.

Cheers
Jon

-- 
nvpublic