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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Wed, 14 Aug 2019 23:22:37 +0100
From:   "tushar.khandelwal@....com" <tushar.khandelwal@....com>
To:     Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>,
        Jassi Brar <jassisinghbrar@...il.com>
Cc:     Morten Borup Petersen <morten_bp@...e.dk>,
        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 14/08/2019 17:51, Sudeep Holla wrote:
> 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.
> 

MHUv2 driver is addressing existing (door-bell) use case as well as new 
(multi-word) use case using new IP features.

> --
> Regards,
> Sudeep
>