linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V4 2/2] firmware: arm

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <d9734fd6-f855-296b-3a0b-ffc45ed0e3cb@gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 5 Mar 2020 09:27:00 -0800
From:   Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>
To:     Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>, Peng Fan <peng.fan@....com>
Cc:     "robh+dt@...nel.org" <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        "viresh.kumar@...aro.org" <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
        dl-linux-imx <linux-imx@....com>,
        "linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
        <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V4 2/2] firmware: arm_scmi: add smc/hvc transport

On 3/5/20 8:06 AM, Sudeep Holla wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 05, 2020 at 11:25:35AM +0000, Peng Fan wrote:
> 
> [...]
> 
>>>
>>> Yes, this may fix the issue. However I would like to know if we need to support
>>> multiple channels/shared memory simultaneously. It is fair requirement and
>>> may need some work which should be fine.
>>
>> Do you have any suggestions? Currently I have not worked out an good
>> solution.
>>
> 
> TBH, I haven't given it a much thought. I would like to know if people
> are happy with just one SMC channel for SCMI or do they need more ?
> If they need it, we can try to solve it. Otherwise, what you have will
> suffice IMO.

On our platforms we have one channel/shared memory area/mailbox instance
for all standard SCMI protocols, and we have a separate channel/shared
memory area/mailbox driver instance for a proprietary one. They happen
to have difference throughput requirements, hence the split.

If I read Peng's submission correctly, it seems to me that the usage
model described before is still fine.
-- 
Florian