linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 0/4] ARC: allow to use IOC and non-IOC DMA devices simultaneously

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: <C2D7FE5348E1B147BCA15975FBA23075012B08C903@us01wembx1.internal.synopsys.com>
Date:   Mon, 13 Aug 2018 17:39:52 +0000
From:   Vineet Gupta <Vineet.Gupta1@...opsys.com>
To:     Eugeniy Paltsev <Eugeniy.Paltsev@...opsys.com>,
        "Eugeniy.Paltsev@...opsys.com" <Eugeniy.Paltsev@...opsys.com>,
        "linux-snps-arc@...ts.infradead.org" 
        <linux-snps-arc@...ts.infradead.org>
CC:     "hch@....de" <hch@....de>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-arch@...r.kernel.org" <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
        Alexey Brodkin <Alexey.Brodkin@...opsys.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/4] ARC: allow to use IOC and non-IOC DMA devices
 simultaneously

On 08/13/2018 10:27 AM, Eugeniy Paltsev wrote:
>> You didn't pay attention to my previous comment on this !
>> IOC port can be considered a micro-architecture optimization (an important one
>> though). The main thing is hardware snooping DMA transactions which enabled IOC in
>> first place.
> Ok, I'll rewrite this commit message.

No need since this is a cover letter and will get dropped anyways, but the reason
I emphasize it is that it sets the wrong expectations for someone down the line
googling for this stuff ! And that someone could be other or just us when we've
long forgotten about this ;-)

>
>>> Some recent SoC with ARC HS (like HSDK) allow to select bus
>>> port (IOC or non-IOC port) for connecting DMA devices in runtime.
>> Again you mention the port but none of your 4 patches actually touch the port
>> itself in programming it.
> Ok.
>