linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V5] 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]

Date:   Thu, 30 Jan 2020 15:11:03 +0530
From:   Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
To:     Etienne Carriere <etienne.carriere@...aro.org>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Peng Fan <peng.fan@....com>,
        Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V5] firmware: arm_scmi: Make scmi core independent of the
 transport type

On 30-01-20, 10:25, Etienne Carriere wrote:
> I've made a first port (draft) for adding new transport channels, next
> to existing mailbox channel, on top of your change.
> You can find it here: https://github.com/etienne-lms/linux/pull/1.
> 
> I don't have specific comments on your change but the one below.
> I think SMT header should move out of mailbox.c, but that may be a bit
> out of the scope of your change.

If it is guaranteed that someone will end up using those routines
apart from mailbox.c, then surely it can be done.
 
> I would prefer an optional mak_txdone callback:
> 
>     if (info->desc->ops->mark_txdone)
>        info->desc->ops->mark_txdone(cinfo, ret);

So you are sure that mark_txdone won't be required in your case? I can
make it optional then.

-- 
viresh