linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/4] mailbox: arm_mhuv2: add device tree binding documentation

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:   Wed, 14 Aug 2019 17:51:33 +0100
From:   Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>
To:     Jassi Brar <jassisinghbrar@...il.com>
Cc:     Morten Borup Petersen <morten_bp@...e.dk>,
        Tushar Khandelwal <tushar.khandelwal@....com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "tushar.2nov@...il.com" <tushar.2nov@...il.com>,
        "nd@....com" <nd@....com>,
        Morten Borup Petersen <morten.petersen@....com>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        Devicetree List <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] mailbox: arm_mhuv2: add device tree binding
 documentation

On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 09:52:25AM -0500, Jassi Brar wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 5:05 AM Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Aug 13, 2019 at 11:36:56AM -0500, Jassi Brar wrote:
> > [...]
> >
> > > > >>
> > > > >> As mentioned in the response to your initial comment, the driver does
> > > > >> not currently support mixing protocols.
> > > > >>
> > > > > Thanks for acknowledging that limitation. But lets also address it.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > We are hesitant to dedicate time to developing mixing protocols given
> > > > that we don't have any current usecase nor any current platform which
> > > > would support this.
> > > >
> > > Can you please share the client code against which you tested this driver?
> > > From my past experience, I realise it is much more efficient to tidyup
> > > the code myself, than endlessly trying to explain the benefits.
> > >
> >
> > Thanks for the patience and offer.
> >
> Ok, but the offer is to Morten for MHUv2 driver.
> 
> > Can we try the same with MHUv1 and SCMI
> > upstream driver.
> >
> MHUv1 driver is fine as it is.
> I did try my best to keep you from messing the SCMI driver, without success
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/8/7/924

I disagree, you haven't told me how to address the usecase which I mentioned
with the abstraction/multiplexer on top of MHU as you have been suggesting.

I am sure MHUv2 will have the same usecase.

--
Regards,
Sudeep