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]

Message-ID: <b970542b-0c05-5401-46be-5f585bdafb09@opensynergy.com>
Date:   Thu, 30 Jan 2020 12:58:08 +0100
From:   Peter Hilber <peter.hilber@...nsynergy.com>
To:     Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>,
        Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
CC:     <arnd@...db.de>, <jassisinghbrar@...il.com>,
        <cristian.marussi@....com>, <peng.fan@....com>,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V5] firmware: arm_scmi: Make scmi core independent of the
 transport type

On 28.01.20 18:35, Sudeep Holla wrote:
> Otherwise looks good. Since we are not adding module support, I am fine
> even if we have to make changes to transport ops bit later if required
> and realised when adding new transport. Let us see if Peter has any major
> objections.

I have no objections. Looks good. One remark:

> +struct scmi_transport_ops {
> +     bool (*chan_available)(struct device *dev, int idx);
> +     int (*chan_setup)(struct scmi_chan_info *cinfo, struct device *dev, bool tx);
> +     int (*chan_free)(int id, void *p, void *data);
> +     int (*send_message)(struct scmi_chan_info *cinfo, struct scmi_xfer *xfer);
> +     void (*mark_txdone)(struct scmi_chan_info *cinfo, int ret);
> +     void (*fetch_response)(struct scmi_chan_info *cinfo, struct scmi_xfer *xfer);
> +     bool (*poll_done)(struct scmi_chan_info *cinfo, struct scmi_xfer *xfer);
> +};

Maybe the mark_txdone, fetch_response, and poll_done ops should also get
a `u32 msg_hdr' parameter? I thought it could be required in case of
concurrent xfers, or maybe I don't understand the imposed concurrency
limitations properly.

Best regards,

Peter

Please mind our privacy notice<https://www.opensynergy.com/datenschutzerklaerung/privacy-notice-for-business-partners-pursuant-to-article-13-of-the-general-data-protection-regulation-gdpr/> pursuant to Art. 13 GDPR. // Unsere Hinweise zum Datenschutz gem. Art. 13 DSGVO finden Sie hier.<https://www.opensynergy.com/de/datenschutzerklaerung/datenschutzhinweise-fuer-geschaeftspartner-gem-art-13-dsgvo/>


[tech_days_munchen]

OpenSynergy TechDay München

am 11. Februar 2020, ab 12:00Uhr, im Studio Balan, Moosacherstr. 86.

Anmeldung bitte hier<mailto:sabine.mutumba@...nsynergy.com>