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:   Fri, 10 Jan 2020 12:27:25 +0000
From:   Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>
To:     Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
Cc:     Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, peng.fan@....com,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
        Jassi Brar <jassisinghbrar@...il.com>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>,
        Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] firmware: arm_scmi: Make scmi core independent of
 transport type

On Thu, Jan 09, 2020 at 03:04:42PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 09-01-20, 09:18, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 29, 2019 at 10:32 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.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
> >
> > Conceptually I think this is fine, but as others have said, it would be
> > better to have another transport implementation posted along with this
> > to see if the interfaces actually work out.
>
> @Sudeep/Vincent: Do you think we can add another transport
> implementation something right away for it ?
>

Even if we don't add new transport right away, I would like to see if
the requirements are met. I will take a look at you v2 with that in mind
anyways. We need not wait, we I want to see people think it meets their
requirement. I will also add couple of guys working on virtio transport
for SCMI when I respond to your v2. Thanks for posting it.

> @Peng ?
>
Peng, Did you get a chance to try this with SMC ? If SCMI was the only
usecase, you can try this approach instead of mailbox, now that no one
has any objects to this approach conceptually. Please use v2 as base
and update us.

--
Regards,
Sudeep