linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] firmware: arm_scmi: Make scmi core independent of transport type

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:   Tue, 31 Dec 2019 14:09:27 -0600
From:   Jassi Brar <jassisinghbrar@...il.com>
To:     Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
Cc:     Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-arm-kernel <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] firmware: arm_scmi: Make scmi core independent of
 transport type

On Fri, Nov 29, 2019 at 3:32 AM Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org> wrote:
>
> The SCMI specification is fairly independent of the transport protocol,
> which can be a simple mailbox (already implemented) or anything else.
> The current Linux implementation however is very much dependent of the
> mailbox transport layer.
>
> This patch makes the SCMI core code (driver.c) independent of the
> mailbox transport layer and moves all mailbox related code to a new
> file: mailbox.c.
>
> We can now implement more transport protocols to transport SCMI
> messages.
>
> The transport protocols just need to provide struct scmi_transport_ops,
> with its version of the callbacks to enable exchange of SCMI messages.
>
We can either add new transport layer between SCMI and Mailbox layers,
or we can write new transport as a mailbox driver (which I always
thought could be a usecase). Right now I am of no strong opinion
either way.  Depends, what other transport do you have in mind?

Cheers!