linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V3] firmware: arm_scmi: Make scmi core independent of the 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]

Message-ID: <CAK8P3a0fWf-wd8exJa+_UL9n0bQ26W6wd0iQH32osM1Q+cLu_w@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 21 Jan 2020 16:11:11 +0100
From:   Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To:     Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
Cc:     Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>,
        Jassi Brar <jassisinghbrar@...il.com>,
        cristian.marussi@....com, Peng Fan <peng.fan@....com>,
        peter.hilber@...nsynergy.com,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V3] firmware: arm_scmi: Make scmi core independent of the
 transport type

On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 9:27 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 on 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>
> ---
> @Sudeep: Can you please help me getting this tested?
>
> V2->V3:
> - Added more ops to the structure to read/write/memcpy data
> - Payload is moved to mailbox.c and is handled in transport specific way
>   now. This resulted in lots of changes.

This addresses the comments I had about the implementation.

It's still hard for me to judge whether this is a good abstraction as
long as there is only one backend in the framework, but I see nothing
immediately wrong with it either.

       Arnd