linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V13 06/10] mmc: sdhci-pci: Add CQHCI support for Intel GLK

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: <CACRpkda9xV8D0M+-OYvUsxR-3MEnsOepCiHCE=dc_+cqmGaFWg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 10 Nov 2017 09:18:03 +0100
From:   Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
To:     Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>
Cc:     Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>,
        linux-mmc <linux-mmc@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-block <linux-block@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Bough Chen <haibo.chen@....com>,
        Alex Lemberg <alex.lemberg@...disk.com>,
        Mateusz Nowak <mateusz.nowak@...el.com>,
        Yuliy Izrailov <Yuliy.Izrailov@...disk.com>,
        Jaehoon Chung <jh80.chung@...sung.com>,
        Dong Aisheng <dongas86@...il.com>,
        Das Asutosh <asutoshd@...eaurora.org>,
        Zhangfei Gao <zhangfei.gao@...il.com>,
        Sahitya Tummala <stummala@...eaurora.org>,
        Harjani Ritesh <riteshh@...eaurora.org>,
        Venu Byravarasu <vbyravarasu@...dia.com>,
        Shawn Lin <shawn.lin@...k-chips.com>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V13 06/10] mmc: sdhci-pci: Add CQHCI support for Intel GLK

On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 8:12 AM, Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com> wrote:
> On 08/11/17 11:24, Linus Walleij wrote:
>> On Fri, Nov 3, 2017 at 2:20 PM, Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Add CQHCI initialization and implement CQHCI operations for Intel GLK.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>
>>
>> This patch seems OK in context, but it merely illustrates the
>> weirdness of .[runtime]_suspend/resume calling into CQE-specific
>> APIs rather than using generic host callbacks.
>
> Your comment makes no sense at all.  The host driver has
> [runtime]_suspend/resume callbacks and it is up to the host driver to decide
> what to do.  CQHCI provides helpers since that is the whole point of having
> a CQHCI library.

Yeah I didn't see it in context, the CQHCI library for these hosts
make a lot of sense.

Yours,
Linus Walleij