linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 5/5] remoteproc: qcom: Introduce Hexagon V5 based WCSS driver

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:   Mon, 28 May 2018 21:07:42 -0700
From:   Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@...aro.org>
To:     Sricharan R <sricharan@...eaurora.org>
Cc:     Vinod <vkoul@...nel.org>, Ohad Ben-Cohen <ohad@...ery.com>,
        Sibi Sankar <sibis@...eaurora.org>,
        Rohit kumar <rohitkr@...eaurora.org>,
        Andy Gross <andy.gross@...aro.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-remoteproc@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 5/5] remoteproc: qcom: Introduce Hexagon V5 based
 WCSS driver

On Wed 23 May 07:48 PDT 2018, Sricharan R wrote:
> On 5/23/2018 1:07 PM, Vinod wrote:
> > On 22-05-18, 23:58, Bjorn Andersson wrote:
> >> On Tue 22 May 23:05 PDT 2018, Vinod wrote:
> >>> On 22-05-18, 22:20, Bjorn Andersson wrote:
[..]
> >>> Looking at the patch, few other comments would be applicable too, so would be
> >>> great if you/Sricharan can update this
> >>>
> >>
> >> I agree, the primary purpose of this patch was rather to get feedback on
> >> the structure of the drivers, I do expect this to take another round
> >> through the editor to get some polishing touches. Sorry if this wasn't
> >> clear from the description.
> > 
> > Since Sricharan replied to comments, I though they would be fixed. Yeah this is
> > fine from RFC..
> > 
> 
>  Thanks for this.
> 
>  Tested this on ipq8074 and wcss rproc is up with this.
> 
>  Tested-by: Sricharan R <sricharan@...eaurora.org>
> 

Thanks Sricharan!

>  So regarding the cleanup, as i see, this consolidates the code much better.
> 
>  so about the point of avoiding duplication for soc specific functions like
>  qcv5_wcss_reset common between qcv5_wcss and qcv5_pil drivers as done in my
>  series, with a second thought that feels it might be difficult to maintain
>  in the longer run. Since the sequences are specific to each soc and for now
>  although some part of it is common, for a minor update in one soc, common
>  code needs to reworked every time and tested on all boards that share them.
> 
>  So feels like having the duplication for hw init sequences is the cleaner way.
> 

Sounds good, then let's go with this approach!

>  Apart from that for other comments on the q6v5 wcss driver, i can address them
>  on this final patch that you have posted and same can be included in your
>  next version. Please let me know how you want to go about it.
> 

If you can help me review the first 4 patches and fix up and resend the
5th that would be greatly appreciated.

Regards,
Bjorn