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: <20200114111110.jhkj2y47ncp5233r@vireshk-i7>
Date:   Tue, 14 Jan 2020 16:41:10 +0530
From:   Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
To:     Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Cc:     Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>,
        Jassi Brar <jassisinghbrar@...il.com>,
        cristian.marussi@....com, peng.fan@....com,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2] firmware: arm_scmi: Make scmi core independent of
 transport type

On 14-01-20, 10:56, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> My point was that you cannot mix __iomem accesses with pointer
> accesses. As I understood it, the current version uses a pointer to a

The current version is stupid as I misunderstood the whole __iomem
thing and just dropped it :)

> hardware mailbox with structured data, so you have to use ioremap()
> to get a token you can pass into ioread(), but (some of) the new
> transport types would just be backed by regular RAM, on which this
> is not a well-defined operation and you have to use memremap()
> and memcpy() instead.

Okay, I think I understand that a bit now. So here are the things
which I may need to do now:

- Maybe move payload to struct scmi_mailbox structure, as that is the
  transport dependent structure..

- Do ioremap, etc in mailbox.c only instead of driver.c

- Provide more ops in struct scmi_transport_ops to provide read/write
  helpers to the payload and implement the ones based on
  ioread/iowrite in mailbox.c ..

Am I thinking in the right direction now ?

-- 
viresh

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ