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: <20200121183818.GA11522@bogus>
Date:   Tue, 21 Jan 2020 18:38:18 +0000
From:   Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>
To:     Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Cc:     Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
        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>,
        Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V3] firmware: arm_scmi: Make scmi core independent of the
 transport type

On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 04:11:11PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> 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?
> >

Sure(I may need to rebase on top of -next to test on top of what's queued
for v5.6)

> > 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.
>

Thanks for review and all the suggestions Arnd.

> 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.
>

Peter and Peng(both in cc) is trying out virtio and smc/hvc based transport
respectively. Hopefully they will raise concerns(if any) with the abstraction.

--
Regards,
Sudeep